Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Medical Decision Making
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0272989X07300604v1
27/3/288    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bremner, K. E.
Right arrow Articles by Krahn, M. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bremner, K. E.
Right arrow Articles by Krahn, M. D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Article

A RAND Meta-Analysis of Prostate Cancer Utilities

Karen E. Bremner, BSc*, Christopher A. K. Y. Chong, MD, George Tomlinson, PhD, Shabbir M. H. Alibhai, MD, MSc, Murray D. Krahn, MD, MSc

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: kbremner{at}uhnresearch.ca.


  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 <0.05). Utilities from PC patients rating their own health were 0.14 higher than those from the reference case, but utilities from PC patients rating scenarios were lowest. Time tradeoff yielded the highest utilities. Computer administration yielded lower utilities than personal interview (P <0.02). Neither the scale’s high anchor nor study purpose had significant effects on utilities. Conclusions. This study provides pooled utility estimates for common PC health states and describes how clinical and methodological factors can significantly affect these values. When possible, utility estimates for a modeling application should be derived similarly. Formal data synthesis methods might be useful to researchers integrating utility data from heterogeneous sources. Further exploration of these methods for this purpose is warranted. Keywords: prostate cancer; utility assessment; preferences; quality of life; meta-analysis. (MedDecisMakingXXXX;XX:xx-xx)

First published on May 14, 2007, doi:10.1177/0272989X07300604

Medical Decision Making 2007;27:288.

A more recent version of this article appeared on May 1, 2007

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
Y. Peeters and A. M. Stiggelbout
Valuing Health: Does Enriching a Scenario Lead to Higher Utilities?
Med Decis Making, May 1, 2009; 29(3): 334 - 342.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 InterfacesHome page
J. Simon
Decision Making with Prostate Cancer: A Multiple-Objective Model with Uncertainty
Interfaces, May 1, 2009; 39(3): 218 - 227.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
J. T. King Jr, J. Tsevat, and M. S. Roberts
Impact of the Scale Upper Anchor on Health State Preferences
Med Decis Making, March 1, 2009; 29(2): 257 - 266.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
D. J. McLernon, J. Dillon, and P. T. Donnan
Systematic Review: Health-State Utilities in Liver Disease: A Systematic Review
Med Decis Making, July 1, 2008; 28(4): 582 - 592.
[Abstract] [PDF]