Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Stavros Petrou ; Oliver Rivero-Arias ; Helen Dakin ; Louise Longworth…
• 刊名：PharmacoEconomics
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：October 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：33
• 期：10
• 页码：985-991
• 全文大小：420 KB
• 参考文献：1.Brazier JE, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A, Rowen DL. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11(2):215‵. doi:10.‰07/?s10198-009-0168-z (1425919854).CrossRef PubMed
  2.Dakin H. Review of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:151. doi:10.?86/?77-7525-11-151 (1425925341).PubMed Central CrossRef PubMed
  3.Chuang LH, Whitehead SJ. Mapping for economic evaluation. Br Med Bull. 2012;101:1‵. doi:10.‰93/?bmb/?ldr049 (1427393724).CrossRef PubMed
  4.Longworth L, Rowen D. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 10: the use of mapping methods to estimate health state utility values. Sheffield: Decision Support Unit, ScHARR, University of Sheffield; 2011.
  5.Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000217. doi:10.″71/?journal.?pmed.‰00217 (1425988566).PubMed Central CrossRef PubMed
  6.Moher D, Simera I, Schulz KF, Hoey J, Altman DG. Helping editors, peer reviewers and authors improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting health research. BMC Med. 2008;6:13. doi:10.?86/?41-7015-6-13 (1425989043).PubMed Central CrossRef PubMed
  7.Narahari SR, Ryan TJ, Aggithaya MG, Bose KS, Prasanna KS. Evidence-based approaches for the Ayurvedic traditional herbal formulations: toward an Ayurvedic CONSORT model. J Altern Complement Med. 2008;14(6):769?. doi:10.‰89/?acm.‰07.?18 (1425997359).CrossRef PubMed
  8.Mortimer D, Segal L, Sturm J. Can we derive an ‘exchange rate?etween descriptive and preference-based outcome measures for stroke Results from the transfer to utility (TTU) technique. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7:33. doi:10.?86/?77-7525-7-33 (1426002631).PubMed Central CrossRef PubMed
  9.Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(1):W1′ (1426070562).CrossRef PubMed
  10.Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349?. doi:10.‰93/?intqhc/?mzm042 (1426070607).CrossRef PubMed
  11.Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e297. doi:10.″71/?journal.?pmed.‰40297 (1426070521).PubMed Central CrossRef PubMed
  12.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1?. doi:10.‰16/?j.?jclinepi.‰09.?.‰6 (1426070400).CrossRef PubMed
  13.Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. doi:10.?36/?bmj.?c869 (1426070468).PubMed Central CrossRef PubMed
  14.Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS): explanation and elaboration. A report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(2):231‰. doi:10.‰16/?j.?jval.‰13.′.‰2 (1426070220).CrossRef PubMed
  15.Fitch K, Bernstein S, Aguilar M, Burnand B, LaCalle J, Lazaro P, van het Loo M, McDonnell J, Vader J, Kahan J. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user’s manual. Santa Monica: RAND; 2001.
  16.Petrou S, Rivero-Arias O, Dakin H, Longworth L, Oppe M, Froud R, Gray A. The MAPS reporting statement for studies mapping onto generic preference-based outcome measures: explanation and elaboration. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015. doi:10.‰07/?s40273-015-0312-9 .
  17.Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271′ (1426244550).CrossRef PubMed
  18.Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7(6):490‰2 (1426244646).CrossRef PubMed
  19.Yang Y, Wong MY, Lam CL, Wong CK. Improving the mapping of condition-specific health-related quality of life onto SF-6D score. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2343″. doi:10.‰07/?s11136-014-0668-x (1426244912).CrossRef PubMed
  20.Lee L, Kaneva P, Latimer E, Feldman LS. Mapping the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index to short-form 6D utility scores. J Surg Res. 2014;186(1):135?. doi:10.‰16/?j.?jss.‰13.?.?
• 作者单位：Stavros Petrou (1)
  Oliver Rivero-Arias (2)
  Helen Dakin (3)
  Louise Longworth (4)
  Mark Oppe (5)
  Robert Froud (1) (6)
  Alastair Gray (3)
  
  1. Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK
  2. National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  3. Nuffield Department of Population Health, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  4. Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK
  5. EuroQol Research Foundation, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  6. Norges Helseh?yskole, Campus Kristiania, Oslo, Norway
  
• 刊物主题：Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes; Quality of Life Research; Health Economics; Health Administration;
• 出版者：Springer International Publishing
• ISSN：1179-2027

文摘

‘Mappingnto generic preference-based outcome measures is increasingly being used as a means of generating health utilities for use within health economic evaluations. Despite the publication of technical guides for the conduct of mapping research, guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies. The primary audiences for the MAPS statement are researchers reporting mapping studies, the funders of the research, and peer reviewers and editors involved in assessing mapping studies for publication. A de novo list of 29 candidate reporting items and accompanying explanations was created by a working group comprising six health economists and one Delphi methodologist. Following a two-round modified Delphi survey with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, a final set of 23 items deemed essential for transparent reporting, and accompanying explanations, was developed. The items are contained in a user-friendly 23-item checklist. They are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely: (1) title and abstract; (2) introduction; (3) methods; (4) results; (5) discussion; and (6) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS explanation and elaboration document. It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the MAPS statement is being co-published by seven health economics and quality-of-life journals, and broader endorsement is encouraged. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in 5 yearsime.