Grieve Richard, Grishchenko Marina, Cairns John
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Eur J Health Econ. 2009 Feb;10(1):15-23. doi: 10.1007/s10198-008-0097-2. Epub 2008 Mar 9.
The choice of instrument (e.g. EQ-5D vs. SF-6D) can lead to different health-related utility scores, but it is unclear why these differences arise and whether they change cost utility analysis (CUA) results. This paper addresses these issues using a case study where using SF-6D rather EQ-5D led to greater utility gain and a lower cost per QALY for treatment. The paper examines reasons for this difference. This paper finds that an important factor was the inclusion in the SF-6D descriptive system of separate items for "vitality" and "social functioning", not explicitly included in EQ-5D. Further studies are required that examine the impact of the choice of instrument on cost-utility.
所选用的工具（如EQ-5D与SF-6D）可能会导致不同的健康相关效用评分，但目前尚不清楚为何会出现这些差异，以及它们是否会改变成本效用分析（CUA）的结果。本文通过一个案例研究来探讨这些问题，该案例研究表明，使用SF-6D而非EQ-5D进行治疗会带来更大的效用增益和更低的每质量调整生命年成本。本文考察了造成这种差异的原因。研究发现，一个重要因素是SF-6D描述系统中包含了“活力”和“社会功能”的单独项目，而EQ-5D中并未明确包含这些项目。还需要进一步的研究来考察工具选择对成本效用的影响。
