Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey. University of York. 1995.

Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–108.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation: Oxford University Press; 2017.

Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.

Google Scholar 

Brazier J, Rowen D, Mavranezouli I, Tsuchiya A, Young T, Yang Y, et al. Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technology Assessment. 2012;16(32):https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16320.

Rowen D, Brazier J, Ara R, Azzabi ZI. The role of condition-specific preference-based measures in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(Suppl 1):33–41.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lorgelly PK, Doble B, Rowen D, Brazier J. Cancer i. Condition-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? A comparison of the EORTC-8D and the EQ-5D-3L. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(5):1163–76.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ratcliffe J, Flint T, Easton T, Killington M, Cameron I, Davies O, et al. An empirical comparison of the EQ-5D-5L, DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-Proxy-U in a post-hospitalisation population of frail older people living in residential aged care. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(3):399–412.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Herdman M, Nazir J, Hakimi Z, Siddiqui E, Huang M, Pavesi M, et al. Assessing preference-based outcome measures for overactive bladder: an evaluation of patient-reported outcome data from the BESIDE clinical trial. The patient. 2017.

Mortimer D, Segal L. Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY-weights. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(1):66–89.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Petrillo J, Cairns J. Converting condition-specific measures into preference-based outcomes for use in economic evaluation. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;8(5):453–61.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lin FJ, Longworth L, Pickard AS. Evaluation of content on EQ-5D as compared to disease-specific utility measures. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(4):853–74.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Goodwin E, Green C. A systematic review of the literature on the development of condition-specific preference-based measures of health. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(2):161–83.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A, et al. The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11(3):570–9.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365–76.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Guyatt GH, Bombardier C, Tugwell PX. Measuring disease-specific quality of life in clinical trials. CMAJ. 1986;134(8):889–95.

CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Edelen MO, Reeve BB. Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(Suppl 1):5–18.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Brazier JE, Rowen D, Mavranezouli I, Tsuchiya A, Young T, Yang Y, et al. Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England). 2012;16(32):1–114.

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Tennant A, Conaghan PG. The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57(8):1358–62.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Clark LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess. 1995;7(3):309–19.

Article  Google Scholar 

Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco A, Khalil H. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis: JBI; 2020.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Covidence Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia2021 [Available from: https://www.covidence.org/.

De Vet H, Terwee C, Mokkink L, Knol D. Measurement in Medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.

Book  Google Scholar 

Goodwin E, Green C. A quality-adjusted life-year measure for multiple sclerosis: developing a patient-reported health state classification system for a multiple sclerosis-specific preference-based measure. Value in Health. 2015;18(8):1016–24.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

O’Brien K. Factor analysis: an overview in the field of measurement. Physiother Can. 2007;59:142–55.

Article  Google Scholar 

Norman G, Streiner D. Chapter 19 Principal Components and Factor Analysis: Fooling Around with Factors. 3rd Edition Biostatistics: the Bare Essentials. Hamilton, ON: B.C. Decker, Inc.; 2008. p. 194–209.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Kerr C, Breheny K, Lloyd A, Brazier J, Bailey DB Jr, Berry-Kravis E, et al. Developing a utility index for the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC-C) for fragile X syndrome. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(2):305–14.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Raspa M, Sacco P, Candrilli SD, Bishop E, Petrillo J. Validity of a condition specific outcome measure for fragile X syndrome: the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist-utility index. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2016;60(9):844–55.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Young TA, Yang Y, Brazier JE, Tsuchiya A. The use of rasch analysis in reducing a large condition-specific instrument for preference valuation: the case of moving from AQLQ to AQL-5D. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(1):195–210.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Crossman-Barnes CJ, Sach T, Wilson A, Barton G. The construct validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, AQL-5D and a bespoke TTO in acute asthmatics. Qual Life Res. 2020;29(3):619–27.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Yang Y, Brazier JE, Tsuchiya A, Young TA. Estimating a preference-based index for a 5-dimensional health state classification for asthma derived from the asthma quality of life questionnaire. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(2):281–91.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kharroubi SA, Brazier JE, Yang Y. Modeling a preference-based index for two condition-specific measures (asthma and overactive bladder) using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Value in Health. 2014;17(4):406–15.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan VH, Campbell JD, Globe G, Bender B, Magid DJ. Measurement of utility in asthma: evidence indicating that generic instruments may miss clinically important changes. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(12):3017–26.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kontodimopoulos N, Stamatopoulou E, Brinia A, Talias MA, Ferreira LN. Are condition-specific utilities more valid than generic preference-based ones in asthma? Evidence from a study comparing EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D with AQL-5D. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;18(6):667–75.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Sadatsafavi M, McTaggart-Cowan H, Chen W, Mark FitzGerald J, Economic Burden of Asthma Study G. Quality of Life and Asthma Symptom Control: Room for Improvement in Care and Measurement. Value in Health. 2015;18(8):1043–9.

Cuervo J, Castejon N, Khalaf KM, Waweru C, Globe D, Patrick DL. Development of the Incontinence Utility Index: estimating population-based utilities associated with urinary problems from the incontinence quality of life questionnaire and neurogenic module. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:147.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Castejon N, Khalaf K, Ni Q, Cuervo J, Patrick DL. Psychometric properties of the incontinence utility index among patients with idiopathic overactive bladder: data from two multicenter, double-blind, randomized, Phase 3, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:116.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Young T, Yang Y, Brazier JE, Tsuchiya A, Coyne K. The first stage of developing preference-based measures: constructing a health-state classification using Rasch analysis. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(2):253–65.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Yang Y, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Coyne K. Estimating a preference-based single index from the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire. Value Health. 2009;12(1):159–66.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Desroziers K, Aballea S, Maman K, Nazir J, Odeyemi I, Hakimi Z. Estimating EQ-5D and OAB-5D health state utilities for patients with overactive bladder. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:200.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Rowen D, Brazier J, Young T, Gaugris S, Craig BM, King MT, Velikova G. Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value in Health. 2011;14(5):721–31.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Rowen D, Young T, Brazier J, Gaugris S. Comparison of generic, condition-specific, and mapped health state utility values for multiple myeloma cancer. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1059–68.

Article  PubMed