Brazier J, Ara R, Rowen D, Chevrou-Severac H. A review of generic preference-based measures for use in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(Suppl 1):21–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0545-x.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Devlin N, Parkin D, Janssen B. Methods for analysing and reporting EQ-5D data. Cham (CH): Springer; 2020.

Book  Google Scholar 

Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96:5–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldq033.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Richardson J, Khan MA, Iezzi A, Maxwell A. Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(3):276–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x14543107.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kennedy-Martin M, Slaap B, Herdman M, van Reenen M, Kennedy-Martin T, Greiner W, et al. Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(8):1245–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Rencz F, Gulácsi L, Drummond M, Golicki D, Prevolnik Rupel V, Simon J, et al. EQ-5D in Central and Eastern Europe: 2000–2015. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(11):2693–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1375-6.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

EuroQol Group. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9.

Article  Google Scholar 

Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Buchholz I, Janssen MF, Kohlmann T, Feng YS. A systematic review of studies comparing the measurement properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):645–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0642-5.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma. Az Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma egészségügyi szakmai irányelve az egészség-gazdaságtani elemzések készítéséhez és értékeléséhez. Egészségügyi Közlöny. 2021;71(21):2178–200.

Rowen D, Mukuria C, McDool E. A systematic review of the methodologies and modelling approaches used to generate international EQ-5D-5L value sets. Pharmacoeconomics. 2022;40(9):863–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01159-1.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Janssen MF, Buchholz I. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(3):647–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02688-y.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–83.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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):271–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-6296(01)00130-8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Wang L, Poder TG. A systematic review of SF-6D health state valuation studies. J Med Econ. 2023;26(1):584–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2023.2195753.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Longworth L, Yang Y, Young T, Mulhern B, Hernández Alava M, Mukuria C, et al. Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(9):1–224. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18090.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Brazier J, Connell J, Papaioannou D, Mukuria C, Mulhern B, Peasgood T, et al. A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(34):vii-viii, xiii-xxv, 1–188. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18340

Zhang A, Mao Z, Wang Z, Wu J, Luo N, Wang P. Comparing measurement properties of EQ-5D and SF-6D in East and South-East Asian populations: a scoping review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2023;23(5):449–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2023.2189590.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Cella D, Choi SW, Condon DM, Schalet B, Hays RD, Rothrock NE, et al. PROMIS(®) adult health profiles: efficient short-form measures of seven health domains. Value Health. 2019;22(5):537–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.02.004.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Reeve BB, Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Cook KF, Crane PK, Teresi JA, et al. Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S22-31. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000250483.85507.04.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, Rothrock N, Reeve B, Yount S, et al. The Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1179–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Dewitt B, Feeny D, Fischhoff B, Cella D, Hays RD, Hess R, et al. Estimation of a preference-based summary score for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System: The PROMIS(®)-Preference (PROPr) Scoring System. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(6):683–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x18776637.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Hanmer J. Measuring population health: association of self-rated health and PROMIS measures with social determinants of health in a cross-sectional survey of the US population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021;19(1):221. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01854-1.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Zhang J, Dewitt B, Tang E, Breitner D, Saqib M, Li D, et al. Evaluation of PROMIS preference scoring system (PROPr) in patients undergoing hemodialysis or kidney transplant. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2021;16(9):1328–36. https://doi.org/10.2215/cjn.01880221.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Pan T, Mulhern B, Viney R, Norman R, Tran-Duy A, Hanmer J, Devlin N. Evidence on the relationship between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D: a literature review. Qual Life Res. 2022;31(1):79–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02911-4.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Rencz F, Brodszky V, Janssen MF. A direct comparison of the measurement properties of EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-29+2 and PROMIS global health instruments and EQ-5D-5L and PROPr utilities in a general population sample. Value Health. 2023;26(7):1045–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2023.02.002.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Jenei B, Bató A, Mitev AZ, Brodszky V, Rencz F. Hungarian PROMIS-29+2: psychometric properties and population reference values. Qual Life Res. 2023;32(8):2179–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03364-7.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Mulhern BJ, Pan T, Norman R, Tran-Duy A, Hanmer J, Viney R, Devlin NJ. Understanding the measurement relationship between EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-29 and PROPr. Qual Life Res. 2023;32(11):3147–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03462-6.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Nagy Z, Kiss N, Szigeti M, Áfra J, Lekka N, Misik F, et al. Construct validity of the Hungarian Version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 Profile Among Patients with Low Back Pain. World Neurosurg. 2024;181:e55–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2023.06.097.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Szende A, Németh R. Health-related quality of life of the Hungarian population. Orv Hetil. 2003;144(34):1667–74.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Nikl A, Janssen MF, Brodszky V, Rencz F. Hungarian population norms for the 15D generic preference-accompanied health status measure. Qual Life Res. 2024;33(1):87–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03514-x.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Czimbalmos Á, Nagy Z, Varga Z, Husztik P. Páciens megelégedettségi vizsgálat SF-36 kérdőívvel, a magyarországi normálértékek meghatározása. Nepegeszseguegy. 1999;80(1):4–19.

Google Scholar 

Bató A, Brodszky V, Mitev AZ, Jenei B, Rencz F. Psychometric properties and general population reference values for PROMIS Global Health in Hungary. Eur J Health Econ. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-023-01610-w.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

EuroQol Group. EQ-5D-5L population norm studies. https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-5l-about/population-norms/. Accessed 17 Aug 2023.

Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S, Igarashi A, Noto S, Saito S, Shimozuma K. Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):707–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1108-2.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Xie S, Wu J, Xie F. Population norms for SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L in China. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2022;20(4):573–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-022-00715-2.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Olariu E, Caplescu R, Vale L, Niculescu-Aron IG, Oluboyede Y, Paveliu MS. Population norms for the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in Romania. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2023;21(1):80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-023-02144-8.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Szende A, Leidy NK, Ståhl E, Svensson K. Estimating health utilities in patients with asthma and COPD: evidence on the performance of EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(2):267–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9429-z.