IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v10y2020i1d10.1186_s13561-020-00269-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The validation of published utility mapping algorithms: an example of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D in non-small cell lung cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Joanne Gregory

    (BresMed Health Solutions)

  • Matthew Dyer

    (AstraZeneca)

  • Christopher Hoyle

    (AstraZeneca)

  • Helen Mann

    (AstraZeneca)

  • Anthony J. Hatswell

    (Delta Hat)

Abstract

Background Mapping algorithms can be used to generate health state utilities when a preference-based instrument is not included in a clinical study. Our aim was to investigate the external validity of published mapping algorithms in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) between the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D instruments and to propose methodology for validating any mapping algorithms. Methods We conducted a targeted literature review to identify published mappings, then applied these to data from the osimertinib clinical trial programme. Performance of the algorithms was evaluated using the mean absolute error, root mean squared error, and graphical techniques for the observed versus predicted EQ-5D utilities. These statistics were also calculated across the range of utility values (as well as ordinary least squares and quantile regression), to investigate how the mappings fitted across all values, not simply around the mean utility. Results Three algorithms developed in NSCLC were identified. The algorithm based on response mapping (Young et al., 2015) fitted the validation dataset across the range of observed values with similar fit statistics to the original publication (overall MAE of 0.087 vs 0.134). The two algorithms based on beta-binomial models presented a poor fit to both the mean and distribution of utility values (MAE 0.176, 0.178). Conclusions The validation of mapping algorithms is key to demonstrating their generalisability beyond the original dataset, particularly across the range of plausible utility values (not just the mean) – perceived patient similarity being insufficient. The identified algorithm from Young et al. performed well across the range of EORTC scores observed, and thus appears most suitable for use in other studies of NSCLC patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Joanne Gregory & Matthew Dyer & Christopher Hoyle & Helen Mann & Anthony J. Hatswell, 2020. "The validation of published utility mapping algorithms: an example of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D in non-small cell lung cancer," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:10:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-020-00269-w
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-020-00269-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-020-00269-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-020-00269-w?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. Becky Pennington & Monica Hernandez-Alava & Stephen Pudney & Allan Wailoo, 2019. "The Impact of Moving from EQ-5D-3L to -5L in NICE Technology Appraisals," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 75-84, January.
    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. Beth Woods & Aimée Fox & Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton, 2021. "Estimating the shares of the value of branded pharmaceuticals accruing to manufacturers and to patients served by health systems," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(11), pages 2649-2666, November.
    2. Ting Zhou & Zhiyuan Chen & Hongchao Li & Feng Xie, 2021. "Using Published Health Utilities in Cost-Utility Analyses: Discrepancies and Issues in Cardiovascular Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(6), pages 685-692, August.

    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:spr:hecrev:v:10:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-020-00269-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .

    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.