Angevine PD, Berven S. Health economic studies: an introduction to cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analyses. Spine. 2014;39(22S):S9–15.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Brazier J, et al. A review of generic preference-based measures for use in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(Suppl 1):21–31.

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;14:161–83.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Aaronson NK, 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. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365–76.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Giesinger JM, et al. Past and current practice of patient-reported outcome measurement in randomized cancer clinical trials: a systematic review. Value in Health. 2021;24(4):585–91.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

King M, et al. QLU-C10D: a health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):625–36.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Norman R, et al. Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):637–49.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

King MT, et al. Australian utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(2):225–38.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

McTaggart-Cowan H, et al. The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Canadian valuation study and algorithm to derive cancer-specific utilities from the EORTC QLQ-C30. MDM Policy Pract. 2019;4(1):2381468319842532.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Norman R, et al. UK utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D. Health Econ. 2019;28(12):1385–401.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Revicki DA, et al. United States Utility Algorithm for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multiattribute Utility Instrument Based on a Cancer-Specific Quality-of-Life Instrument. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(4):485–501.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Gamper EM, et al. EORTC QLU-C10D value sets for Austria, Italy, and Poland. Qual Life Res. 2020;29(9):2485–95.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Kemmler G, et al. German value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res J Qual Life Res. 2019;28:3197–211.

Article  Google Scholar 

Finch A, et al. Estimation of an EORTC QLU-C10D value set for Spain using a discrete choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;39:1085–98.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Jansen F, et al. Dutch utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument: the Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D. Qual Life Res. 2021;30:2009–19.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Lehmann J, et al. Danish value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D utility instrument. Qual Life Res. 2024;33:1–11.

Article  Google Scholar 

Nerich V, et al. French value-set of the QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility measure derived from the QLQ-C30. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19:191–202.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

ISPOR. Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines Around The World. [cited 2021 September 5]; Available from: https://tools.ispor.org/peguidelines/.

Luo N, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value in Health. 2017;20(4):662–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Purba FD, et al. The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L value set. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35:1153–65.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Mai VQ, et al. An EQ-5D-5L value set for Vietnam. Qual Life Res. 2020;29(7):1923–33.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Ikeda S, et al. Developing a Japanese version of the EQ-5D-5L value set. J Natl Inst Public Health. 2015;64(1):47–55.

Google Scholar 

Pattanaphesaj J, et al. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Thailand. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;18(5):551–8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kim S-H, et al. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea. Qual Life Res. 2016;25:1845–52.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

iQWiG. General Methods for the Assessment of the Relation of Benefits to Costs. [cited 2021 September 5]; Available from: https://tools.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/Germany_AssessmentoftheRelationofBenefitstoCosts_En.pdf. Accessed 3 June 2024.

Brazier J, et al. Identification, review, and use of health state utilities in cost-effectiveness models: an ISPOR good practices for outcomes research task force report. Value in Health. 2019;22(3):267–75.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Peeters Y, Stiggelbout AM. Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value in Health. 2010;13(2):306–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Gandhi M, et al. Comparison of health state values derived from patients and individuals from the general population. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(12):3353–63.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Gandhi M, et al. Do chronic disease patients value generic health states differently from individuals with no chronic disease? A case of a multicultural Asian population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):1–9.

Article  Google Scholar 

Krabbe PF, et al. Are patients’ judgments of health status really different from the general population? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9(1):1–9.

Article  Google Scholar 

Pickard AS, Tawk R, Shaw JW. The effect of chronic conditions on stated preferences for health. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(4):697–702.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Rowen D, et al. Comparison of general population, patient, and carer utility values for dementia health states. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(1):68–80.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Goodwin E, Green C, Hawton A. What difference does it make? A comparison of health state preferences elicited from the general population and from people with multiple sclerosis. Value Health. 2020;23(2):242–50.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Gries KS, et al. Preferences for prostate cancer outcomes: a comparison of the patient perspective, the general population perspective, and a population at risk for prostate cancer. Value in Health. 2016;19(2):218–25.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ludwig K, et al. To what extent do patient preferences differ from general population preferences? Value in Health. 2021;24(9):1343–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Luo N, et al. The European organization for research and treatment of cancer quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30): validation of English version in Singapore. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(4):1181–6.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Phillips R, et al. Summary scores captured changes in subjects’ QoL as measured by the multiple scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(8):895–902.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Cheung YB, et al. The equivalence and difference between the English and Chinese versions of two major, cancer-specific, health-related quality-of-life questionnaires. Cancer Interdiscipl Int J Am Cancer Soc. 2004;101(12):28