Overview, Update, and Lessons Learned From the International EQ-5D-5L Valuation Work: Version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Protocol

Herdman, 2011, Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L), Qual Life Res, 20, 1727, 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x

Devlin, 2013, The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L, Eur J Health Econ, 14, S1, 10.1007/s10198-013-0502-3

Oppe, 2014, A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol, Value Health, 17, 445, 10.1016/j.jval.2014.04.002

Oppe, 2016, EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes, Pharmacoeconomics, 34, 993, 10.1007/s40273-016-0404-1

Dolan, 1997, Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states, Med Care, 35, 1095, 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002

Janssen, 2013, Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity, Eur J Health Econ, 14, S5, 10.1007/s10198-013-0503-2

Devlin, 2011, A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the “lead time” approach, Health Econ, 20, 348, 10.1002/hec.1596

Oppe M, Ramos-Goñi JM, van Hout B. Modeling EQ-5D-5L valuation data. EuroQol Group. http://eq-5dpublications.euroqol.org/download?id=0_53782&fileId=54196. Accessed June 6, 2017.

Ramos-Goñi, 2018, Handling data quality issues to estimate the Spanish EQ-5D-5L value set using a hybrid interval regression approach, Value Health, 21, 596, 10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.023

Craig, 2009, The episodic random utility model unifies time trade-off and discrete choice approaches in health state valuation, Popul Health Metr, 7, 3, 10.1186/1478-7954-7-3

Rowen, 2015, A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the full health-dead QALY scale, Med Decis Making, 35, 328, 10.1177/0272989X14559542

Devlin, 2018, Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-442 5L value set for England, Health Econ, 27, 7, 10.1002/hec.3564

Versteegh, 2016, Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D, Value Health, 19, 343, 10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.003

Ramos-Goñi, 2017, Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach, Med Care, 55, e51, 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000283

Ramos-Goñi, 2017, Quality control process for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies, Value Health, 20, 466, 10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.012

Craig, 2015, Learning and satisficing: an analysis of sequence effects in health valuation, Value Health, 18, 217, 10.1016/j.jval.2014.11.005

Shah K, Rand-Hendriksen K, Ramos JM, Prause AJ, Stolk E. Improving the quality of data collected in EQ-5D-5L valuation studies: a summary of the EQ-VT research methodology programme. EuroQol Group. http://eq-5dpublications.euroqol.org/download?id=0_53918&fileId=54332. Accessed June 6, 2017.

Oppe, 2010

Ramos-Goñi, 2016

Augustovski, 2016, An EQ-5D-5L value set based on Uruguayan population preferences, Qual Life Res, 25, 323, 10.1007/s11136-015-1086-4

Kim, 2016, The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea, Qual Life Res, 25, 1845, 10.1007/s11136-015-1205-2

Xie, 2016, A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada, Med Care, 54, 98, 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000447

Luo, 2017, Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China, Value Health, 20, 662, 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.016

Feng, 2018, New methods for modelling EQ-5D-5L value sets: an application to English data, Health Econ, 27, 23, 10.1002/hec.3560

Oppe, 2017

Johnson, 2013, Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force, Value Health, 16, 3, 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223

Ludwig, 2018, German value set for the EQ-5D-5L, Pharmacoeconomics, 36, 663, 10.1007/s40273-018-0615-8

Wong, 2018, Assessing the use of a feedback module to model EQ-5D-5L health states values in Hong Kong, Patient, 11, 235, 10.1007/s40271-017-0278-0

Purba, 2017, The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L value set, Pharmacoeconomics, 35, 1153, 10.1007/s40273-017-0538-9

Cameron, 2010

Bansback, 2012, Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values, J Health Econ, 31, 306, 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.11.004

Flynn, 2008, Rescaling quality of life values from discrete choice experiments for use as QALYs: a cautionary tale, Popul Health Metr, 6, 6, 10.1186/1478-7954-6-6

Norman, 2016, The impact of different DCE-based approaches when anchoring utility scores, Pharmacoeconomics, 34, 805, 10.1007/s40273-016-0399-7

Gu, 2014, Estimating health state utility values from discrete choice experiments—a QALY space model approach, Health Econ, 23, 1098, 10.1002/hec.3066

Craig, 2016, Valuation of child health-related quality of life in the United States, Health Econ, 25, 768, 10.1002/hec.3184

Jakubczyk, 2018, Choice defines value: a predictive modeling competition in health preference research, Value Health, 21, 229, 10.1016/j.jval.2017.09.016

Lim, 2018, Severity-stratified discrete choice experiment designs for health state evaluations, Pharmacoeconomics, 36, 1377, 10.1007/s40273-018-0694-6

Matza, 2016, The time horizon matters: results of an exploratory study varying the timeframe in time trade-off and standard gamble utility elicitation, Eur J Health Econ, 17, 979, 10.1007/s10198-015-0740-7

Stiggelbout, 1995, The “utility” of the time trade-off method in cancer patients: feasibility and proportional trade-off, J Clin Epidemiol, 48, 1207, 10.1016/0895-4356(95)00011-R

Torrance, 1996, Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: health utilities index mark 2, Med Care, 34, 702, 10.1097/00005650-199607000-00004

Feeny, 2002, Multi-attribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system, Med Care, 40, 113, 10.1097/00005650-200202000-00006

Brazier, 2002, The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36, J Health Econ, 21, 271, 10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8

Brazier, 1998, Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 health survey, J Clin Epidemiol, 51, 1115, 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00103-6

Boye, 2014, Challenges to time trade-off utility assessment methods: when should you consider alternative approaches?, Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 14, 437, 10.1586/14737167.2014.912562

Van der Pol, 2007, Extrinsic goals and time tradeoff, Med Decis Making, 27, 406, 10.1177/0272989X07302127