• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

从已发表的研究中推导一种算法,用于将八个平均SF-36维度得分转换为基于EQ-5D偏好的平均得分(这些研究中没有患者层面的数据)。

Deriving an algorithm to convert the eight mean SF-36 dimension scores into a mean EQ-5D preference-based score from published studies (where patient level data are not available).

作者信息

Ara Roberta, Brazier John

机构信息

The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

出版信息

Value Health. 2008 Dec;11(7):1131-43. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00352.x. Epub 2008 May 16.

DOI:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00352.x
PMID:18489495
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to derive a method to predict a mean cohort EQ-5D preference-based index score using published mean statistics of the eight dimension scores describing the SF-36 health profile.

METHODS

Ordinary least square regressions models are derived using patient level data (n = 6350) collected during 12 clinical studies. The models were compared for goodness of fit using standard techniques such as variance explained, the magnitude of errors in predicted values, and the proportion of values within the minimal important difference of the EQ-5D. Predictive abilities were also compared using summary statistics from both within-sample subgroups and published studies.

RESULTS

The models obtained explained more than 56% of the variance in the EQ-5D scores. The mean predicted EQ-5D score was correct to within two decimal places for all models and the absolute error for the individual predicted values was approximately 0.13. Using summary statistics to predict within-sample subgroup mean EQ-5D scores, the mean errors (mean absolute errors) ranged from 0.021 to 0.077 (0.045-0.083). These statistics for the out-of-sample published data sets ranged from 0.048 to 0.099 (0.064-0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

The models provided researchers with a mechanism to estimate EQ-5D utility data from published mean dimension scores. This research is unique in that it uses mean statistics from published studies to validate the results. While further research is required to validate the results in additional health conditions, the algorithms can be used to derive additional preference-based measures for use in economic analyses.

摘要

目的

本研究的目的是推导出一种方法,使用已发表的描述SF-36健康状况的八个维度得分的均值统计数据,来预测队列平均EQ-5D基于偏好的指数得分。

方法

使用在12项临床研究中收集的患者水平数据(n = 6350)推导普通最小二乘回归模型。使用诸如解释方差、预测值误差大小以及EQ-5D最小重要差异内的值的比例等标准技术,对模型的拟合优度进行比较。还使用样本内亚组和已发表研究的汇总统计数据比较预测能力。

结果

获得的模型解释了EQ-5D得分中超过56%的方差。所有模型的平均预测EQ-5D得分精确到小数点后两位,个体预测值的绝对误差约为0.13。使用汇总统计数据预测样本内亚组平均EQ-5D得分时,平均误差(平均绝对误差)范围为0.021至0.077(0.045 - 0.083)。样本外已发表数据集的这些统计数据范围为0.048至0.099(0.064 - 0.010)。

结论

这些模型为研究人员提供了一种机制,可根据已发表的平均维度得分来估计EQ-5D效用数据。本研究具有独特性,因为它使用已发表研究的均值统计数据来验证结果。虽然需要进一步研究以在其他健康状况下验证结果,但这些算法可用于推导用于经济分析的其他基于偏好的测量方法。

相似文献

1
Deriving an algorithm to convert the eight mean SF-36 dimension scores into a mean EQ-5D preference-based score from published studies (where patient level data are not available).从已发表的研究中推导一种算法,用于将八个平均SF-36维度得分转换为基于EQ-5D偏好的平均得分(这些研究中没有患者层面的数据)。
Value Health. 2008 Dec;11(7):1131-43. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00352.x. Epub 2008 May 16.
2
Predicting the short form-6D preference-based index using the eight mean short form-36 health dimension scores: estimating preference-based health-related utilities when patient level data are not available.使用 8 个平均短式 36 健康维度评分预测短式 6D 偏好指数:在无法获得患者水平数据时估计基于偏好的健康相关效用。
Value Health. 2009 Mar-Apr;12(2):346-53. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00428.x. Epub 2008 Jul 18.
3
Deriving a mapping algorithm for converting SF-36 scores to EQ-5D utility score in a Korean population.推导一种用于将韩国人群的SF-36评分转换为EQ-5D效用评分的映射算法。
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014 Sep 24;12:145. doi: 10.1186/s12955-014-0145-9.
4
Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 to the preference-based EQ-5D, SF-6D, and 15D instruments.将癌症特异性 EORTC QLQ-C30 映射到偏好加权 EQ-5D、SF-6D 和 15D 工具。
Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1151-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00569.x. Epub 2009 Jun 25.
5
Using the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale to estimate health state utility values: mapping from the MSIS-29, version 2, to the EQ-5D and the SF-6D.使用多发性硬化症影响量表来估算健康状态效用值:从 MSIS-29 版本 2 到 EQ-5D 和 SF-6D 的映射。
Value Health. 2012 Dec;15(8):1084-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.07.007. Epub 2012 Nov 4.
6
Comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D responses using scoring algorithms derived from similar valuation exercises.使用源自类似评估练习的评分算法比较同期 EQ-5D 和 SF-6D 反应。
Value Health. 2014 Jul;17(5):570-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.03.1720. Epub 2014 May 14.
7
Mapping AcroQoL scores to EQ-5D to obtain utility values for patients with acromegaly.将肢端肥大症患者的AcroQoL评分映射到EQ-5D以获得效用值。
J Med Econ. 2018 Apr;21(4):382-389. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2017.1419960. Epub 2018 Jan 5.
8
Mapping ALSFRS-R and ALSUI to EQ-5D in Patients with Motor Neuron Disease.将 ALSFRS-R 和 ALSUI 与运动神经元病患者的 EQ-5D 进行映射。
Value Health. 2018 Nov;21(11):1322-1329. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.05.005. Epub 2018 Jul 26.
9
Mapping the SRS-22r questionnaire onto the EQ-5D-5L utility score in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.将SRS-22r问卷映射到青少年特发性脊柱侧凸患者的EQ-5D-5L效用评分上。
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 17;12(4):e0175847. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175847. eCollection 2017.
10
A comparison of utility measurement using EQ-5D and SF-6D preference-based generic instruments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.类风湿关节炎患者使用 EQ-5D 和 SF-6D 偏好型通用量表进行效用测量的比较。
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2011 Jul-Aug;29(4):661-71. Epub 2011 Aug 31.

引用本文的文献

1
Quality of Life After Transradial Access in Cerebral Angiography: A SF-12 Analysis Using a Then-Test Design.经桡动脉途径行脑血管造影术后的生活质量:采用前后测试设计的SF-12分析
Healthcare (Basel). 2025 Jun 24;13(13):1509. doi: 10.3390/healthcare13131509.
2
Single-chamber pacemakers: with or without leads? Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses.单腔起搏器:带或不带导线?成本效益分析和成本效用分析。
Ann Med. 2025 Dec;57(1):2512108. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2025.2512108. Epub 2025 May 29.
3
Cost-effectiveness of Micra™ VR leadless pacemaker in patients with bradycardia and atrial fibrillation in Australia.
Micra™ VR无导线起搏器在澳大利亚心动过缓和心房颤动患者中的成本效益
J Arrhythm. 2024 Sep 27;40(6):1481-1489. doi: 10.1002/joa3.13145. eCollection 2024 Dec.
4
Cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopy for the management of early-stage cervical cancer: a model-based economic evaluation in China.机器人手术与传统腹腔镜治疗早期宫颈癌的成本效益比较:基于模型的中国经济学评价。
BMJ Open. 2024 Nov 20;14(11):e087113. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087113.
5
Decision analytical modelling of strategies for investigating suspected acute aortic syndrome.疑似急性主动脉综合征的检查策略的决策分析模型。
Emerg Med J. 2024 Nov 21;41(12):728-735. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2024-214222.
6
The Impact of Tocilizumab Coverage on Health Equity for Inpatients with COVID-19 in the USA: A Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.托珠单抗纳入医保对美国新冠肺炎住院患者健康公平性的影响:一项分布成本效益分析
Pharmacoeconomics. 2025 Jan;43(1):67-82. doi: 10.1007/s40273-024-01436-1. Epub 2024 Oct 10.
7
Transperineal biopsy devices in people with suspected prostate cancer - a systematic review and economic evaluation.经会阴前列腺穿刺活检装置在疑似前列腺癌患者中的应用:系统评价和经济评估。
Health Technol Assess. 2024 Oct;28(60):1-213. doi: 10.3310/ZKTW8214.
8
Effects of Adalimumab-adbm Versus Adalimumab Reference Product on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from VOLTAIRE-RA.阿达木单抗 - adbm与阿达木单抗参比产品对类风湿关节炎患者报告结局的影响:VOLTAIRE - RA研究结果
Rheumatol Ther. 2024 Oct;11(5):1291-1302. doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00687-w. Epub 2024 Aug 9.
9
The functional and psychological impact of delayed hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 89,996 patients.延迟髋关节和膝关节置换术的功能和心理影响:对 89996 例患者的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Sci Rep. 2024 Apr 5;14(1):8032. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-58050-6.
10
International Systematic Review of Utility Values Associated with Cardiovascular Disease and Reflections on Selecting Evidence for a UK Decision-Analytic Model.国际心血管疾病效用值系统评价及对英国决策分析模型中证据选择的思考。
Med Decis Making. 2024 Feb;44(2):217-234. doi: 10.1177/0272989X231214782. Epub 2024 Jan 4.