IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v13y2004i12p1203-1210.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency

Author

Listed:
  • Gerald Richardson

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)

  • Andrea Manca

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK)

Abstract

Economic evaluations alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are increasingly being designed to prospectively collect patient-specific resource use and preference-based health status (utility) data. This paper examines the ways in which preference-based health status (utility) data are used to generate quality adjusted life years (QALYs). A literature review was carried out which identified 23 published cost utility analyses suitable for inclusion. The methodology employed to calculate QALYs was not always consistent, as well as being poorly reported. The use of different methodologies in the calculation of QALYs may influence the magnitude and direction of results of evaluations. Analysts need to be consistent and fully transparent in the methodology chosen to calculate QALYs. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerald Richardson & Andrea Manca, 2004. "Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(12), pages 1203-1210.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:12:p:1203-1210
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.901
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.901
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas Graves & Damian Walker & Rosalind Raine & Andrew Hutchings & Jennifer A. Roberts, 2002. "Cost data for individual patients included in clinical studies: no amount of statistical analysis can compensate for inadequate costing methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(8), pages 735-739.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    2. Miriam Krieger & Thomas Mayrhofer, 2012. "Patient Preferences and Treatment Thresholds under Diagnostic Risk – An Economic Laboratory Experiment," Ruhr Economic Papers 0321, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    3. Gre[ss], Stefan & Niebuhr, Dea & Rothgang, Heinz & Wasem, Jurgen, 2005. "Criteria and procedures for determining benefit packages in health care: A comparative perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 78-91, July.
    4. Nadia YAKHELEF & Martine AUDIBERT & Bruno PEIRERA & Antoine MONS & Emmanuel CHABERT, 2015. "Cost-utility Analysis of Vertebroplasty versus Thoracolumbosacral Orthosis in the Treatment of Traumatic Vertebral Fractures," Working Papers 201534, CERDI.
    5. Moreno, E. & Girón, F.J. & Martínez, M.L. & Vázquez-Polo, F.J. & Negrín, M.A., 2013. "Optimal treatments in cost-effectiveness analysis in the presence of covariates: Improving patient subgroup definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 173-182.
    6. Negri­n, Miguel A. & Vázquez-Polo, Francisco-José, 2008. "Incorporating model uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis: A Bayesian model averaging approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 1250-1259, September.
    7. Thomas Reinhold & Claudia Witt & Susanne Jena & Benno Brinkhaus & Stefan Willich, 2008. "Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture treatment in patients with osteoarthritis pain," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 209-219, August.
    8. Mayrhofer, Thomas & Krieger, Miriam, 2012. "Patient Preferences and Treatment Thresholds under Diagnostic Risk: An Economic Laboratory Experiment," Annual Conference 2012 (Goettingen): New Approaches and Challenges for the Labor Market of the 21st Century 62033, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    9. repec:zbw:rwirep:0321 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Maria-Florencia Hutter & Roberto Rodríguez-Ibeas & Fernando Antonanzas, 2014. "Methodological reviews of economic evaluations in health care: what do they target?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(8), pages 829-840, November.
    11. Nadia Yakhelef & Martine Audibert & Bruno Peirera & Antoine Mons & Emmanuel Chabert, 2015. "Cost-utility Analysis of Vertebroplasty versus Thoracolumbosacral Orthosis in the Treatment of Traumatic Vertebral Fractures," Working Papers halshs-01241824, HAL.
    12. Miguel A. Negrín & Francisco J. Vázquez-Polo, 2006. "Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis with two measures of effectiveness: the cost-effectiveness acceptability plane," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 363-372.
    13. repec:spr:pharmo:v:1:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-017-0015-6 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Rachael Hunter & Gianluca Baio & Thomas Butt & Stephen Morris & Jeff Round & Nick Freemantle, 2015. "An Educational Review of the Statistical Issues in Analysing Utility Data for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 355-366, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:12:p:1203-1210. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.