4.1 Review

Health State Utility Value in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD); The Challenge of Heterogeneity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/15412555.2015.1092953

关键词

chronic disease; Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD); EQ-5D; heterogeneity; Quality of Life (QoL); utility

资金

  1. University of Melbourne Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has a considerable impact on quality of life and well-being of patients. Health state utility value (HSUV) is a recognized measure for health economic appraisals and is extensively used as an indicator for decision-making studies. This study is a systematic review of literature aimed to estimate mean utility value in COPD using meta-analysis and explore degree of heterogeneity in the utility values across a variety of clinical and study characteristic. The literature review covers studies that used EQ-5D to estimate utility value for patient level research in COPD. Studies that reported utility values elicited by EQ-5D in COPD patients were selected for random-effect meta-analysis addressing inter-study heterogeneity and subgroup analyses. Thirty-two studies were included in the general utility meta-analysis. The estimated general utility value was 0.673 (95% CI 0.653 to 0.693). Meta-analyses of COPD stages utility values showed influence of airway obstruction on utility value. The utility values ranged from 0.820 (95% CI 0.767 to 0.872) for stage I to 0.624 (95% CI 0.571 to 0.677) for stage IV. There was substantial heterogeneity in utility values: I-2 = 97.7%. A more accurate measurement of utility values in COPD is needed to refine valid and generalizable scores of HSUV. Given the limited success of the factors studied to reduce heterogeneity, an approach needs to be developed how best to use mean utility values for COPD in health economic evaluation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据