IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v27y2007i3p288-298.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Review and Meta-Analysis of Prostate Cancer Utilities

Author

Listed:
  • Karen E. Bremner

    (Toronto General Research Institute University Health Network, kbremner@uhnresearch.ca)

  • Christopher A. K. Y. Chong

    (Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Canada)

  • George Tomlinson

    (Toronto General Research Institute University Health Network, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Canada, Department of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Canada, Department of Biostatistics, University of Toronto, Canada)

  • Shabbir M. H. Alibhai

    (Toronto General Research Institute University Health Network, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Canada, Department of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Canada)

  • Murray D. Krahn

    (Toronto General Research Institute University Health Network, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Canada, Department of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Canada, Department of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Canada)

Abstract

Background. Health-related quality of life is a key issue in prostate cancer (PC) management. The authors summarized published utilities for common health-related quality of life outcomes of PC and determined how methodological factors affect them. Methods. In their systematic review, the authors identified 23 articles in English, providing 173 unique utilities for PC health states, each obtained from 2 to 422 respondents. Data were pooled using linear mixed-effects modeling with utilities clustered within the study, weighted by the number of respondents divided by the variance of each utility. Results. In the base model, the estimated utility of the reference case (scenario of a metastatic PC patient with severe sexual symptoms, rated by non-PC patients using time tradeoff) was 0.76. Disease stage, symptom type and severity, source of utility, and scaling method were associated with utility differences of 0.10 to 0.32 (P

Suggested Citation

  • Karen E. Bremner & Christopher A. K. Y. Chong & George Tomlinson & Shabbir M. H. Alibhai & Murray D. Krahn, 2007. "A Review and Meta-Analysis of Prostate Cancer Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(3), pages 288-298, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:3:p:288-298
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07300604
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07300604
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X07300604?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sherine E. Gabriel & Terry S. Kneeland & L. Joseph Melton & Megan M. Moncur & Bruce Ettinger & Anna N.A. Tosteson, 1999. "Health-related Quality of Life in Economic Evaluations for Osteoporosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(2), pages 141-148, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Julie Sturza, 2010. "A Review and Meta-Analysis of Utility Values for Lung Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(6), pages 685-693, November.
    2. Duncan Mortimer & Leonie Segal, 2008. "Comparing the Incomparable? A Systematic Review of Competing Techniques for Converting Descriptive Measures of Health Status into QALY-Weights," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 66-89, January.
    3. Peasgood, T & Ward, S & Brazier, J, 2010. "A review and meta-analysis of health state utility values in breast cancer," MPRA Paper 29950, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Joseph T. King Jr & Joel Tsevat & Mark S. Roberts, 2009. "Impact of the Scale Upper Anchor on Health State Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(2), pages 257-266, March.
    5. William Hollingworth & Richard A. Deyo & Sean D. Sullivan & Scott S. Emerson & Darryl T. Gray & Jeffrey G. Jarvik, 2002. "The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF‐36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 71-85, January.
    6. Anja Schwalm & You-Shan Feng & Jörn Moock & Thomas Kohlmann, 2015. "Differences in EQ-5D-3L health state valuations among patients with musculoskeletal diseases, health care professionals and healthy volunteers," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(8), pages 865-877, November.
    7. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:3:p:288-298. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.