Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 295–313 | Cite as

An Updated Systematic Review of Studies Mapping (or Cross-Walking) Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life to Generic Preference-Based Measures to Generate Utility Values

  • Clara MukuriaEmail author
  • Donna Rowen
  • Sue Harnan
  • Andrew Rawdin
  • Ruth Wong
  • Roberta Ara
  • John Brazier
Systematic Review



Mapping is an increasingly common method used to predict instrument-specific preference-based health-state utility values (HSUVs) from data obtained from another health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measure. There have been several methodological developments in this area since a previous review up to 2007.


To provide an updated review of all mapping studies that map from HRQoL measures to target generic preference-based measures (EQ-5D measures, SF-6D, HUI measures, QWB, AQoL measures, 15D/16D/17D, CHU-9D) published from January 2007 to October 2018.

Data sources

A systematic review of English language articles using a variety of approaches: searching electronic and utilities databases, citation searching, targeted journal and website searches.

Study selection

Full papers of studies that mapped from one health measure to a target preference-based measure using formal statistical regression techniques.

Data extraction

Undertaken by four authors using predefined data fields including measures, data used, econometric models and assessment of predictive ability.


There were 180 papers with 233 mapping functions in total. Mapping functions were generated to obtain EQ-5D-3L/EQ-5D-5L-EQ-5D-Y (n = 147), SF-6D (n = 45), AQoL-4D/AQoL-8D (n = 12), HUI2/HUI3 (n = 13), 15D (n = 8) CHU-9D (n = 4) and QWB-SA (n = 4) HSUVs. A large number of different regression methods were used with ordinary least squares (OLS) still being the most common approach (used ≥ 75% times within each preference-based measure). The majority of studies assessed the predictive ability of the mapping functions using mean absolute or root mean squared errors (n = 192, 82%), but this was lower when considering errors across different categories of severity (n = 92, 39%) and plots of predictions (n = 120, 52%).


The last 10 years has seen a substantial increase in the number of mapping studies and some evidence of advancement in methods with consideration of models beyond OLS and greater reporting of predictive ability of mapping functions.


Author Contributions

CM and DR reviewed studies, extracted and analysed the data from the review, and wrote the manuscript. SH and AR reviewed studies, extracted data and contributed to the manuscript. RW undertook the searches and contributed to the manuscript. RA and JB were involved in designing the analysis and contributed to the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

JB and CM were supported in the preparation and submission of this paper by the HEOM Theme of the NIHR CLAHRC Yorkshire and Humber: The views expressed are those of the author(s), and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. CM, DR, SH, AR, RW, RA and JB have no conflicts of interests to declare.

Data availability

Full data extracted from each of the studies is available in the electronic supplements.

Supplementary material

40258_2019_467_MOESM1_ESM.docx (30 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 30 kb)
40258_2019_467_MOESM2_ESM.docx (52 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 51 kb)
40258_2019_467_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (80 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (XLSX 79 kb)


  1. 1.
    Herdman M, 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.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rowen D, et al. The role of condition-specific preference-based measures in health technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;35(S1):33–41.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53–72.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42(9):851–9.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Med Care. 1996;34(7):702–22.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feeny D, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002;40(2):113–28.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Richardson J, et al. Modelling utility weights for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2395–404.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sintonen H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):328–36.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaplan RM. New health promotion indicators: the general health policy model. Health Prom Int. 1988;3(1):35–49.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Apajasalo M, et al. Quality of life in early adolescence: a sixteendimensional health-related measure (16D). Qual Life Res. 1996;5(2):205–11.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Apajasalo M, et al. Quality of life in pre-adolescence: a 17-dimensional health-related measure (17D). Qual Life Res. 1996;5(6):532–8.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wille N, et al. Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):875–86.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moodie M, et al. Predicting time trade-off health state valuations of adolescents in four pacific countries using the assessment of quality-of-life (AQoL-6D) instrument. Value Health. 2010;13(8):1014–27.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Berry CC. Health status: types of validity and the index of well-being. Health Serv Res. 1976;11(4):478.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stevens K. Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health-related quality of life for children. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(8):1105–13.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rowen D, et al. International regulations and recommendations for utility data for health technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;35(S1):11–9.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    National Insitute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2013.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Busschbach JJV, Van Hout B, De Wit GA. BIJLAGE 2: QALY en kwaliteit: van leven metingen. Diemen: Zorginstituut Nederland; 2016.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Committee Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee. Australia: Australian Government Department of Health; 2013.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haute Autorité de Santé. Choices in methods for economic evaluation. France: HAS; 2012.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zorginstituut Nederland. Guideline for economic evaluations in healthcare. 2016. Accessed 18 Sept 2017.
  23. 23.
    CatSalut, Guia I Recomanacions Per A La Realització I Presentació D’avaluacions Econòmiques I Anàlisis D’impacte Pressupostari De Medicaments En L’àmbit Del Catsalut. 2014, CatSalut: Catalonia.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    CADTH. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada—4th Edition. 2017. Accessed 18 Sept 2017.
  25. 25.
    Longworth L, Rowen D. Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. Value Health. 2013;16(1):202–10.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ara R, Rowen D, Mukuria C. The use of mapping to estimate health state utility values. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;35(S1):57–66.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wailoo AJ, et al. Mapping to estimate health-state utility from non–preference-based outcome measures: an ISPOR good practices for outcomes research task force report. Value Health. 2017;20(1):18–27.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Round J, Hawton A. Statistical alchemy: conceptual validity and mapping to generate health state utility values. PharmacoEconomics-open. 2017;1(4):233–9.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brazier JE, et al. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11(2):215–25.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Petrou S, et al. The MAPS reporting statement for studies mapping onto generic preference-based outcome measures: explanation and elaboration. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33(10):993–1011.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dakin H. Review of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11(1):151.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rees A, et al. Development of the Scharr HUD (Health Utilities Database). Value Health. 2013;16(7):A580.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chen G, Ratcliffe J. A review of the development and application of generic multi-attribute utility instruments for paediatric populations. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33(10):1013–28.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kwon J, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of childhood health utilities. Med Decis Making. 2017;38(3):277–305.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brazier J, 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.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kearns B, Ara R, Wailoo AJ. A review of the use of statistical regression models to inform cost effectiveness analyses within the NICE technology appraisals programme, in NICE Decision Support Unit. 2012.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Longworth L, Rowen D. The use of mapping methods to estimate health state utility values, in NICE DSU technical support. Sheffield: Decision Support Unit, ScHARR, University of Sheffield; 2011. p. b4.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    ISPOR. ISPOR Scientific Presentations Database. [cited 2017 18 September]; Available from: Accessed 18 Sept 2017.
  39. 39.
    Group, E. EuroQoL Group Website. [cited 2017 18 September]; Accessed 18 Sept 2017.
  40. 40.
    van Hout B, et al. Interim Scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L Value Sets. Value Health. 2012;15(5):708–15.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kularatna S, et al. Mapping Sri Lankan EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L value sets. Value Health Reg Issues. 2017;12:20–3.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Golicki D, et al. Interim EQ-5D-5L value set for Poland: first crosswalk value set in Central and Eastern Europe. Value Health Reg Issues. 2014;4:19–23.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-ltem short-form health survey (SF-36). Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–83.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Norman R, et al. Valuing SF-6D health states using a discrete choice experiment. Med Decis Making. 2013;34(6):773–86.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cruz LN, et al. Estimating the SF-6D value set for a population-based sample of Brazilians. Value Health. 2011;14(5):S108–14.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lam CLK, Brazier J, McGhee SM. Valuation of the SF-6D health states is feasible, acceptable, reliable, and valid in a Chinese population. Value Health. 2008;11(2):295–303.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Brazier JE, et al. Estimating a preference-based index from the Japanese SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(12):1323–31.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ferreira LN, et al. A Portuguese value set for the SF-6D. Value Health. 2010;13(5):624–30.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Abellán Perpiñán JM, et al. Lowering the ‘floor’ of the SF-6D scoring algorithm using a lottery equivalent method. Health Econ. 2011;21(11):1271–85.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    McCabe C, et al. Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey. Health Econ. 2005;14(3):231–44.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Le Galès C, et al. Development of a preference-weighted health status classification system in France: the Health Utilities Index 3. Health Care Manag Sci. 2002;5(1):41–51.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ruiz M, et al. Adaptación y validación del Health Utilities Index Mark 3 al castellano y baremos de corrección en la población española. Medicina Clínica. 2003;120(3):89–96.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Michel YA, Augestad LA, Barra M, et al. A Norwegian 15D value algorithm: proposing a new procedure to estimate 15D value algorithms. Qual Life Res. 2018. Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Osborne R. The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 1999;8(3):209–24.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Richardson JRJ, et al. Construction of the descriptive system for the assessment of quality of life AQoL-6D utility instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10(1):38.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kaplan RM, Sieber WJ, Ganiats TG. The quality of well-being scale: comparison of the interviewer-administered version with a self-administered questionnaire. Psychol Health. 1997;12(6):783–91.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Seiber WJ et al. Quality of well being self-administered (QWB-SA) scale. San Diego: Health Services Research Center, University of California. 2008.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Stevens K. Valuation of the child health utility 9D index. PharmacoEconomics. 2012;30(8):729–47.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ratcliffe J, et al. Nothing about us without us? A comparison of adolescent and adult health-state values for the child health utility-9D using profile case best-worst scaling. Health Econ. 2016;25(4):486–96.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ratcliffe J, et al. Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm. Soc Sci Med. 2016;157:48–59.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Chen G et al. Scoring the Child Health Utility 9D instrument: estimation of a Chinese child and adolescent-specific tariff. Qual Life Res. 2018:1–14.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Chen G, et al. Mapping between 6 multiattribute utility instruments. Med Decis Making. 2015;36(2):160–75.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Richardson J, et al. 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. 2014;35(3):276–91.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mihalopoulos C, et al. Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures. Br J Psychiatry. 2014;205(05):390–7.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Chen G, et al. Diabetes and quality of life: comparing results from utility instruments and Diabetes-39. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2015;109(2):326–33.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Bergius S, et al. Health-related quality of life among prostate cancer patients: real-life situation at the beginning of treatment. Scand J Urol. 2016;51(1):13–9.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Collado-Mateo D, et al. Fibromyalgia and quality of life: mapping the revised fibromyalgia impact questionnaire to the preference-based instruments. Health Qual Life Outcom. 2017;15(1):114.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Chen G, et al. Deriving health utilities from the MacNew heart disease quality of life questionnaire. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2014;14(5):405–15.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kaambwa B, et al. Mapping between the sydney asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and five multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs). PharmacoEconomics. 2016;35(1):111–24.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Mortimer D, Segal L, Sturm J. Can we derive an ‘exchange rate’ between descriptive and preference-based outcome measures for stroke? Results from the transfer to utility (TTU) technique. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7(1):33.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Mortimer D, et al. Item-based versus subscale-based mappings from the SF-36 to a preference-based quality of life measure. Value Health. 2007;10(5):398–407.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ackerman IN, et al. Using WOMAC Index scores and personal characteristics to estimate Assessment of Quality of Life utility scores in people with hip and knee joint disease. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2365–74.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Kontodimopoulos N, et al. Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 to the preference-based EQ-5D, SF-6D, and 15D instruments. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1151–7.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Chen G, et al. Mapping of Incontinence Quality of Life (I-QOL) scores to Assessment of Quality of Life 8D (AQoL-8D) utilities in patients with idiopathic overactive bladder. Health Qual Life Outcom. 2014;12(1):133.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Chen G, et al. From KIDSCREEN-10 to CHU9D: creating a unique mapping algorithm for application in economic evaluation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:134.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Lambe T, et al. Mapping the paediatric quality of life inventory (PedsQLTM) generic core scales onto the child health utility index-9 dimension (CHU-9D) score for economic evaluation in children. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(4):451–65.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Furber G, et al. Mapping scores from the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) to preference-based utility values. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):403–11.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Robinson T, Oluboyede Y. Estimating CHU-9D utility scores from the WAItE: a mapping algorithm for economic evaluation. Value Health. 2019;22(2):239–46.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hua AY, et al. Mapping functions in health-related quality of life: mapping from the Achilles Tendon Rupture Score to the EQ-5D. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(10):3083–8.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Badia X, et al. Mapping AcroQoL scores to EQ-5D to obtain utility values for patients with acromegaly. J Med Econ. 2018;21(4):382–9.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Bafus BT. Evaluation of utility in shoulder pathology: correlating the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Constant scores to the EuroQoL. World J Orthop. 2012;3(3):20.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Mlcoch T, et al. Mapping the relationship between clinical and quality-of-life outcomes in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;17(2):203–11.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Kaambwa B, Billingham L, Bryan S. Mapping utility scores from the Barthel index. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;14(2):231–41.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Wailoo A, et al. Modeling health state utility values in ankylosing spondylitis: comparisons of direct and indirect methods. Value Health. 2015;18(4):425–31.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Grochtdreis T, et al. Mapping the beck depression inventory to the Eq-5d-3 l in patients with depressive disorders. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A707.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Yousefi M et al. Mapping catquest scores onto EQ-5D utility values in patients with cataract disease. Iranian Red Cres Med J. 2016;19(5).Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Boland MRS, et al. Mapping the clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire onto generic preference-based EQ-5D values. Value Health. 2015;18(2):299–307.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Hoyle CK, Tabberer M, Brooks J. Mapping the COPD assessment test onto EQ-5D. Value Health. 2016;19(4):469–77.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Badia X, et al. Mapping CushingQOL scores to EQ-5D utility values using data from the European Registry on Cushing’s syndrome (ERCUSYN). Qual Life Res. 2013;22(10):2941–50.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Acaster S, et al. Mapping the EQ-5D index from the cystic fibrosis questionnaire-revised using multiple modelling approaches. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):33.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Poole CD, et al. Estimation of health-related utility (EQ-5D index) in subjects with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis to evaluate health gain associated with sublingual grass allergen immunotherapy. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):99.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Ali FM, et al. Mapping of the DLQI scores to EQ-5D utility values using ordinal logistic regression. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(11):3025–34.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Blome C, et al. Mapping DLQI on EQ-5D in psoriasis: transformation of skin-specific health-related quality of life into utilities. Arch Dermatol Res. 2012;305(3):197–204.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Davison NJ, et al. Generating EQ-5D-3L utility scores from the dermatology life quality index: a mapping study in patients with psoriasis. Value Health. 2018;21(8):1010–8.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Herédi E, et al. Exploring the relationship between EQ-5D, DLQI and PASI, and mapping EQ-5D utilities: a cross-sectional study in psoriasis from Hungary. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(S1):111–9.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Norlin JM, et al. Analysis of three outcome measures in moderate to severe psoriasis: a registry-based study of 2450 patients. Br J Dermatol. 2012;166(4):797–802.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Mlcoch T, et al. Mapping quality of life (EQ-5D) from DAPsA, clinical DAPsA and HAQ in psoriatic arthritis. Patient Patient Center Outcomes Res. 2018;11(3):329–40.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Crott R, Briggs A. Mapping the QLQ-C30 quality of life cancer questionnaire to EQ-5D patient preferences. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11(4):427–34.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Jang RW, et al. Derivation of utility values from european organization for research and treatment of cancer quality of life-core 30 questionnaire values in lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5(12):1953–7.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Khan I, Morris S. A non-linear beta-binomial regression model for mapping EORTC QLQ- C30 to the EQ-5D-3L in lung cancer patients: a comparison with existing approaches. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):163.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Kharroubi SA, et al. Use of Bayesian Markov chain monte carlo methods to estimate EQ-5D utility scores from EORTC QLQ data in myeloma for use in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(3):351–60.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Kharroubi SA, et al. Bayesian statistical models to estimate EQ-5D utility scores from EORTC QLQ data in myeloma. Pharm Stat. 2018;17(4):358–71.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Kim E-J, Ko S-K, Kang H-Y. Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 to the generic EQ-5D in metastatic breast cancer patients. Qual Life Res. 2011;21(7):1193–203.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Kim SH, et al. Mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 onto EQ-5D for the assessment of cancer patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10(1):151.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Marriott E-R, et al. Mapping EORTC-QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D-3L in patients with colorectal cancer. J Med Econ. 2016;20(2):193–9.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    McKenzie L, van der Pol M. Mapping the EORTC QLQ C-30 onto the EQ-5D instrument: the potential to estimate QALYs without generic preference Data. Value Health. 2009;12(1):167–71.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Proskorovsky I, et al. Mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20 to EQ-5D in patients with multiple myeloma. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):35.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Versteegh MM, et al. Mapping onto Eq-5 D for patients in poor health. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8(1):141.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Versteegh MM, et al. Mapping QLQ-C30, HAQ, and MSIS-29 on EQ-5D. Med Decis Making. 2011;32(4):554–68.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Woodcock F, Doble B. Mapping the EORTC-QLQ-C30 to the EQ-5D-3L: an assessment of existing and newly developed algorithms. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(8):954–67.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Burge R, et al. Use of health-related quality of life measures to predict health utility in postmenopausal osteoporotic women: results from the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11(1):189.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Huamán JW, et al. Cutoff values of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire to predict a normal health related quality of life. J Crohn’s Colitis. 2010;4(6):637–41.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Cheung YB et al. Mapping the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) to the 5-level EuroQoL group’s 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) utility index in a Multi-ethnic Asian population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1).Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Cheung Y-B, et al. Mapping the English and Chinese versions of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general to the EQ-5D utility index. Value Health. 2009;12(2):371–6.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Teckle P, et al. Mapping the FACT-G cancer-specific quality of life instrument to the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11(1):203.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Young TA, et al. Mapping functions in health-related quality of life. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(7):912–26.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Askew RL, et al. Mapping FACT-Melanoma quality-of-life scores to EQ-5D health utility weights. Value Health. 2011;14(6):900–6.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Diels J, et al. Mapping FACT-P to EQ-5D in a large cross-sectional study of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. Qual Life Res. 2014;24(3):591–8.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Skaltsa K, et al. Mapping the FACT-P to the preference-based EQ-5D questionnaire in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Value Health. 2014;17(2):238–44.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Wu EQ, et al. Mapping FACT-P and EORTC QLQ-C30 to patient health status measured by EQ-5D in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients. Value Health. 2007;10(5):408–14.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Monroy M et al. Mapping of the Gastrointestinal Short Form Questionnaire (GSF-Q) into EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Ara R, et al. Predicting preference-based utility values using partial proportional odds models. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7(1):438.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Lindkvist M, Feldman I. Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in mental health interventions: mapping mental health specific outcome measure GHQ-12 onto EQ-5D-3L. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1).Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Serrano-Aguilar P, et al. The relationship among mental health status (GHQ-12), health related quality of life (EQ-5D) and health-state utilities in a general population. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2009;18(3):229–39.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Ward Fuller G, et al. Health State preference weights for the glasgow outcome scale following traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and mapping study. Value Health. 2017;20(1):141–51.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Gillard PJ, et al. Mapping from disease-specific measures to health-state utility values in individuals with migraine. Value Health. 2012;15(3):485–94.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Bansback N, et al. Using the health assessment questionnaire to estimate preference-based single indices in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57(6):963–71.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Hernández Alava M, Wailoo AJ, Ara R. Tails from the Peak District: adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models of EQ-5D questionnaire health state utility values. Value Health. 2012;15(3):550–561.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Wolfe F, Michaud K, Wallenstein G. Scale characteristics and mapping accuracy of the US EQ-5D, UK EQ-5D, and SF-6D in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2010;37(8):1615–25.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Nair SC, et al. Does disease activity add to functional disability in estimation of utility for rheumatoid arthritis patients on biologic treatment? Rheumatology. 2015;55(1):94–102.Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Hernández Alava M, et al. The relationship between EQ-5D, HAQ and pain in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology. 2013;52(5):944–50.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Adams R, et al. Understanding the relationship between the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HAQ and disease activity in inflammatory arthritis. PharmacoEconomics. 2010;28(6):477–87.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Carreño A, et al. Using HAQ-DI to estimate HUI-3 and EQ-5D utility values for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Spain. Value Health. 2011;14(1):192–200.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Kim H-L, et al. Mapping health assessment questionnaire disability index (HAQ-DI) score, pain visual analog scale (VAS), and disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28) onto the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) utility score with the KORean Observational study Network for Arthritis (KORONA) registry data. Rheumatol Int. 2016;36(4):505–13.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Jia H, et al. Predicting the EuroQol Group’s EQ-5D Index from CDC’s “Healthy Days” in a US Sample. Med Decis Making. 2010;31(1):174–85.Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Kay S, et al. Mapping EQ-5D Utility Scores from the Incontinence Quality of Life Questionnaire among Patients with Neurogenic and Idiopathic Overactive Bladder. Value Health. 2013;16(2):394–402.Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Buxton MJ, et al. Mapping from disease-specific measures to utility: an analysis of the relationships between the inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire and Crohn’s disease activity index in Crohn’s disease and measures of utility. Value Health. 2007;10(3):214–20.Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Gu NY, et al. Mapping of the Insomnia Severity Index and other sleep measures to EuroQol EQ-5D health state utilities. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9(1):119.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Dixon P, Dakin H, Wordsworth S. Generic and disease-specific estimates of quality of life in macular degeneration: mapping the MacDQoL onto the EQ-5D-3L. Qual Life Res. 2015;25(4):935–45.Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Vera E, et al. Relationship between symptom burden and health status: analysis of the MDASI-BT and EQ-5D. Neuro-Oncol Pract. 2018;5(1):56–63.Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Huang IC et al. Addressing ceiling effects in health status measures: a comparison of techniques applied to measures for people with HIV disease. Health Serv Res. 2007;43(1p1):327–339.Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Joyce VR, et al. Mapping MOS-HIV to HUI3 and EQ-5D-3L in patients With HIV. MDM Policy Pract. 2017;2(2):238146831771644.Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Ali M, et al. Dependency and health utilities in stroke: data to inform cost-effectiveness analyses. Eur Stroke J. 2016;2(1):70–6.Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Rivero-Arias O, et al. Mapping the modified rankin scale (mRS) measurement into the generic EuroQol (EQ-5D) health outcome. Med Decis Making. 2009;30(3):341–54.Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Whynes DK, et al. Testing for Differential Item Functioning within the EQ-5D. Med Decis Making. 2012;33(2):252–60.Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Kontodimopoulos N, et al. Longitudinal predictive ability of mapping models: examining post-intervention EQ-5D utilities derived from baseline MHAQ data in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;14(2):307–14.Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Sauerland S, et al. Mapping utility scores from a disease-specific quality-of-life measure in bariatric surgery patients. Value Health. 2009;12(2):364–70.Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Hawton A, et al. Using the multiple sclerosis impact scale to estimate health state utility values: mapping from the MSIS-29, version 2, to the EQ-5D and the SF-6D. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1084–91.Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    Hawton A, et al. The use of multiple sclerosis condition-specific measures to inform health policy decision-making: mapping from the MSWS-12 to the EQ-5D. Multiple Sclerosis J. 2011;18(6):853–61.Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Sidovar MF, et al. Mapping the 12-item multiple sclerosis walking scale to the EuroQol 5-dimension index measure in North American multiple sclerosis patients. BMJ Open. 2013;3(5):e002798.Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Kay S, Ferreira A. Mapping the 25-item national eye institute visual functioning questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) to EQ-5D utility scores. Ophthalm Epidemiol. 2014;21(2):66–78.Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Browne C, et al. Estimating quality-adjusted life years from patient-reported visual functioning. Eye. 2012;26(10):1295–301.Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    Payakachat N, et al. Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the 25-item National Eye Institute Vision Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(7):801–13.Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    Carreon LY, et al. Estimating EQ-5D values from the Neck Disability Index and numeric rating scales for neck and arm pain. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(3):394–9.Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    Vokó Z, et al. Mapping the Nottingham Health Profile onto the Preference-Based EuroQol-5D Instrument for Patients with Diabetes. Value Health Reg Issues. 2014;4:31–6.Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    McDonough CM, et al. Predicting EQ-5D-US and SF-6D societal health state values from the Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire. Osteoporos Int. 2011;23(2):723–32.Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    Ruiz MA, et al. Mapping of the OAB-SF questionnaire onto EQ-5D in Spanish patients with overactive bladder. Clin Drug Investig. 2016;36(4):267–79.Google Scholar
  158. 158.
    Hernandez Alava M, Wailoo A. Fitting adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models to EQ-5D. Stata J. 2015;15(3):737–750.Google Scholar
  159. 159.
    Oppe M, Devlin N, Black N. Comparison of the underlying constructs of the EQ-5D and Oxford hip score: implications for mapping. Value Health. 2011;14(6):884–91.Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    Pinedo-Villanueva RA, et al. Mapping the Oxford hip score onto the EQ-5D utility index. Qual Life Res. 2012;22(3):665–75.Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    Dakin H, Gray A, Murray D. Mapping analyses to estimate EQ-5D utilities and responses based on Oxford Knee Score. Qual Life Res. 2012;22(3):683–94.Google Scholar
  162. 162.
    Cappelleri JC, et al. Mapping painDETECT, a neuropathic pain screening tool, to the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3L). Qual Life Res. 2016;26(2):467–77.Google Scholar
  163. 163.
    Dzingina MD, McCrone P, Higginson IJ. Does the EQ-5D capture the concerns measured by the Palliative care Outcome Scale? Mapping the Palliative care Outcome Scale onto the EQ-5D using statistical methods. Palliat Med. 2017;31(8):716–25.Google Scholar
  164. 164.
    Borchani H, et al. Markov blanket-based approach for learning multi-dimensional Bayesian network classifiers: an application to predict the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) from the 39-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39). J Biomed Inform. 2012;45(6):1175–84.Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    Kent S, et al. Mapping from the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire PDQ-39 to the Generic EuroQol EQ-5D-3L. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(7):902–11.Google Scholar
  166. 166.
    Young MK, et al. Mapping of the PDQ-39 to EQ-5D scores in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Qual Life Res. 2012;22(5):1065–72.Google Scholar
  167. 167.
    Cheung YB, et al. Mapping the eight-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) to the EQ-5D utility index. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(9):1173–81.Google Scholar
  168. 168.
    Hatswell AJ,Vegter S. Measuring quality of life in opioid-induced constipation: mapping EQ-5D-3 L and PAC-QOL. Health Econ Rev. 2016;6(1).Google Scholar
  169. 169.
    Hartman JD, Craig BM. Comparing and transforming PROMIS utility values to the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(3):725–33.Google Scholar
  170. 170.
    Revicki DA, et al. Predicting EuroQol (EQ-5D) scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items and domain item banks in a United States sample. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(6):783–91.Google Scholar
  171. 171.
    Thompson NR, Lapin BR, Katzan IL. Mapping PROMIS global health items to EuroQol (EQ-5D) utility scores using linear and equipercentile equating. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;35(11):1167–76.Google Scholar
  172. 172.
    Park S-Y, et al. Development of a transformation model to derive general population-based utility: mapping the pruritus-visual analog scale (VAS) to the EQ-5D utility. J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23(4):755–61.Google Scholar
  173. 173.
    Geale K, Henriksson M, Schmitt-Egenolf M. How is disease severity associated with quality of life in psoriasis patients? Evidence from a longitudinal population-based study in Sweden. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1).Google Scholar
  174. 174.
    Kołtowska-Häggström M, et al. Using EQ-5D to derive general population-based utilities for the quality of life assessment of growth hormone deficiency in adults (QoL-AGHDA). Value Health. 2007;10(1):73–81.Google Scholar
  175. 175.
    Khan KA, et al. Mapping between the Roland Morris questionnaire and generic preference-based measures. Value Health. 2014;17(6):686–95.Google Scholar
  176. 176.
    Rundell SD, et al. Mapping a Patient-reported functional outcome measure to a utility measure for comparative effectiveness and economic evaluations in older adults with low back pain. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(7):873–83.Google Scholar
  177. 177.
    Wong CKH, et al. Mapping the SRS-22r questionnaire onto the EQ-5D-5L utility score in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0175847.Google Scholar
  178. 178.
    Goldsmith KA, et al. Mapping of the EQ-5D index from clinical outcome measures and demographic variables in patients with coronary heart disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8(1):54.Google Scholar
  179. 179.
    Wijeysundera HC, et al. Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the seattle angina questionnaire in coronary artery disease. Med Decis Making. 2010;31(3):481–93.Google Scholar
  180. 180.
    Chuang L-H, Kind P. Converting the SF-12 into the EQ-5D. PharmacoEconomics. 2009;27(6):491–505.Google Scholar
  181. 181.
    Coca Perraillon M, Shih YCT, Thisted RA. Predicting the EQ-5D-3L preference index from the SF-12 health survey in a national US sample. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(7):888–901.Google Scholar
  182. 182.
    Conigliani C, Manca A, Tancredi A. Prediction of patient-reported outcome measures via multivariate ordered probit models. J R Stat Soc Ser A (Stat Soc). 2014;178(3):567–91.Google Scholar
  183. 183.
    Le QA, Doctor JN. Probabilistic mapping of descriptive health status responses onto health state utilities using bayesian networks. Med Care. 2011;49(5):451–60.Google Scholar
  184. 184.
    Le QA. Probabilistic mapping of the health status measure SF-12 onto the health utility measure EQ-5D using the US-population-based scoring models. Qual Life Res. 2013;23(2):459–66.Google Scholar
  185. 185.
    Ara R, Brazier J. Deriving an algorithm to convert the eight mean SF-36 dimension scores into a mean EQ-5D preference-based score from published studies (where patient level data are not available). Value Health. 2008;11(7):1131–43.Google Scholar
  186. 186.
    Kim SH et al. Deriving a mapping algorithm for converting SF-36 scores to EQ-5D utility score in a Korean population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1).Google Scholar
  187. 187.
    Rowen D, Brazier J, Roberts J. Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D index: how reliable is the relationship? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7(1):27.Google Scholar
  188. 188.
    Neilson AR, et al. Estimating EQ-5D weights from other trial outcome measures for use in cost-effectiveness studies: an example in patients with frozen shoulder. Should Elbow. 2013;5(2):136–43.Google Scholar
  189. 189.
    Crump RT, et al. Establishing utility values for the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) using a crosswalk to the EuroQol-five-dimensional questionnaire-three-level version (EQ-5D-3L). Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2017;7(5):480–7.Google Scholar
  190. 190.
    Starkie HJ, et al. Predicting EQ-5D Values Using the SGRQ. Value Health. 2011;14(2):354–60.Google Scholar
  191. 191.
    Busschbach JJV, et al. Deriving reference values and utilities for the QoL-AGHDA in adult GHD. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;12(3):243–52.Google Scholar
  192. 192.
    Poole CD, et al. A comparison of physician-rated disease severity and patient reported outcomes in mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis. J Crohn’s Colitis. 2010;4(3):275–82.Google Scholar
  193. 193.
    Dams J, et al. Mapping the EQ-5D index by UPDRS and PDQ-8 in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11(1):35.Google Scholar
  194. 194.
    Chan K, et al. Underestimation of uncertainties in health utilities dervied from mapping algorithms involving health-related quality of life measures: statistical explanations and potential remedies. Value Health. 2013;16(3):A49.Google Scholar
  195. 195.
    Barton GR, et al. Do estimates of cost-utility based on the EQ-5D differ from those based on the mapping of utility scores? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6(1):51.Google Scholar
  196. 196.
    Wailoo, A., M. Hernandez Alava, and A. Escobar Martinez, Modelling the relationship between the WOMAC osteoarthritis index and EQ-5D. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):7.Google Scholar
  197. 197.
    Xie F, et al. Use of a disease-specific instrument in economic evaluations: mapping WOMAC onto the EQ-5D utility index. Value Health. 2010;13(8):873–8.Google Scholar
  198. 198.
    Parker M, Haycox A, Graves J. Estimating the relationship between preference-based generic utility instruments and disease-specific quality-of-life measures in severe chronic constipation. PharmacoEconomics. 2011;29(8):719–30.Google Scholar
  199. 199.
    Moore A, Young CA, Hughes DA. Mapping ALSFRS-R and ALSUI to EQ-5D in patients with motor neuron disease. Value Health. 2018;21(11):1322–9.Google Scholar
  200. 200.
    Peak J, et al. Predicting health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L) and capability wellbeing (ICECAP-A) in the context of opiate dependence using routine clinical outcome measures: CORE-OM, LDQ and TOP. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):106.Google Scholar
  201. 201.
    Gamst-Klaussen, T., et al., Assessment of outcome measures for cost–utility analysis in depression: mapping depression scales onto the EQ-5D-5L. 2018. 4(4):160–166.Google Scholar
  202. 202.
    Lamu AN, et al. Do country-specific preference weights matter in the choice of mapping algorithms? The case of mapping the Diabetes-39 onto eight country-specific EQ-5D-5L value sets. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(7):1801–14.Google Scholar
  203. 203.
    Hernández-Alava M, Pudney S. Econometric modelling of multiple self-reports of health states: the switch from EQ-5D-3L to EQ-5D-5L in evaluating drug therapies for rheumatoid arthritis. J Health Econ. 2017;55:139–52.Google Scholar
  204. 204.
    Ameri H, Yousefi M, Yaseri M, Nahvijou A, Arab M, Akbari Sari A. Mapping the cancer-specific QLQ-C30 onto the generic EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in colorectal cancer patients. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2019;19(1):89–96.Google Scholar
  205. 205.
    Lamu AN, Olsen JA. Testing alternative regression models to predict utilities: mapping the QLQ-C30 onto the EQ-5D-5L and the SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2018.Google Scholar
  206. 206.
    Lee CF, et al. Development of conversion functions mapping the FACT-B total score to the EQ-5D-5L utility value by three linking methods and comparison with the ordinary least square method. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2018;16(5):685–95.Google Scholar
  207. 207.
    Patton T, et al. Mapping between HAQ-DI and EQ-5D-5L in a Chinese patient population. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(11):2815–22.Google Scholar
  208. 208.
    Coon, C., et al., Evaluation of a crosswalk between the European Quality of Life Five Dimension Five Level and the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire. Climacteric. 2018; 21:1–8.Google Scholar
  209. 209.
    Kaambwa B, Ratcliffe J. Predicting EuroQoL 5 dimensions 5 levels (EQ-5D-5L) utilities from older people’s quality of life brief questionnaire (OPQoL-Brief) scores. Patient Patient Center Outcomes Res. 2017;11(1):39–54.Google Scholar
  210. 210.
    Abdin E et al. Mapping the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores to EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utility scores in patients with schizophrenia. Qual Life Res. 2018.Google Scholar
  211. 211.
    Wijnen BFM, et al. A comparison of the responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and the QOLIE-31P and mapping of QOLIE-31P to EQ-5D-5L in epilepsy. Eur J Health Econ. 2017;19(6):861–70.Google Scholar
  212. 212.
    Gray LA, Hernandez Alava M. Wailoo AJ (2018) Development of methods for the mapping of utilities using mixture models: mapping the AQLQ-S to the EQ-5D-5L and the HUI3 in patients with asthma. Value Health. 2018;21(6):748–57.Google Scholar
  213. 213.
    Kaambwa B, Smith C, de Lacey S, Ratcliffe J. Does selecting covariates using factor analysis in mapping algorithms improve predictive accuracy? A case of predicting EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utilities from the women’s health questionnaire. Value in Health. 2018;21(10):1205–17.Google Scholar
  214. 214.
    Wee HL, et al. Mean rank, equipercentile, and regression mapping of world health organization quality of life brief (WHOQOL-BREF) to EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 5 levels (EQ-5D-5L) utilities. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(3):319–33.Google Scholar
  215. 215.
    Khan KA, et al. Mapping EQ-5D utility scores from the PedsQL™ generic core scales. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(7):693–706.Google Scholar
  216. 216.
    Dakin H, et al. Mapping analyses to estimate health utilities based on responses to the OM8-30 otitis media questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 2009;19(1):65–80.Google Scholar
  217. 217.
    Cheung YB, Tan HX, Wang VW, Kandiah N, Luo N, Koh GC, Wee HL. Mapping the Alzheimer’s disease cooperative study-activities of daily living inventory to the health utility index mark III. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(1):131–9.Google Scholar
  218. 218.
    Payakachat N, et al. Predicting health utilities for children with autism spectrum disorders. Autism Res. 2014;7(6):649–63.Google Scholar
  219. 219.
    Hays RD et al. Using Linear equating to map PROMIS® global health items and the PROMIS-29 V2.0 profile measure to the health utilities index mark 3. PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34(10):1015–1022.Google Scholar
  220. 220.
    Yang Y, et al. Improving the mapping of condition-specific health-related quality of life onto SF-6D score. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2343–53.Google Scholar
  221. 221.
    Frew EJ, et al. Providing an extended use of an otological-specific outcome instrument to derive cost-effectiveness estimates of treatment. Clin Otolaryngol. 2015;40(6):593–9.Google Scholar
  222. 222.
    Skolasky RL, et al. Predicting health-utility scores from the cervical spine outcomes questionnaire in a multicenter nationwide study of anterior cervical spine surgery. Spine. 2011;36(25):2211–6.Google Scholar
  223. 223.
    Hollingworth W, et al. Exploring the impact of changes in neurogenic urinary incontinence frequency and condition-specific quality of life on preference-based outcomes. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(3):323–31.Google Scholar
  224. 224.
    Kalaitzakis E, et al. Mapping chronic liver disease questionnaire scores onto SF-6D utility values in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Qual Life Res. 2015;25(4):947–57.Google Scholar
  225. 225.
    Stepanova M, et al. Prediction of health utility scores in patients with chronic hepatitis C using the chronic liver disease questionnaire-hepatitis C version (CLDQ-HCV). Value Health. 2018;21(5):612–21.Google Scholar
  226. 226.
    Roset M, et al. Mapping CushingQoL scores onto SF-6D utility values in patients with cushing’s syndrome. Patient Patient Center Outcomes Res. 2013;6(2):103–11.Google Scholar
  227. 227.
    Wong CKH, et al. Predicting SF-6D from the European Organization for treatment and research of cancer quality of life questionnaire scores in patients with colorectal cancer. Value Health. 2013;16(2):373–84.Google Scholar
  228. 228.
    Kontodimopoulos N. The potential for a generally applicable mapping model between QLQ-C30 and SF-6D in patients with different cancers: a comparison of regression-based methods. Qual Life Res. 2014;24(6):1535–44.Google Scholar
  229. 229.
    Wong CKH, et al. Mapping the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general or -colorectal to SF-6D in chinese patients with colorectal neoplasm. Value Health. 2012;15(3):495–503.Google Scholar
  230. 230.
    Lee L, et al. Mapping the gastrointestinal quality of life index to short-form 6D utility scores. J Surg Res. 2014;186(1):135–41.Google Scholar
  231. 231.
    Meacock R, et al. Mapping the disease-specific LupusQoL to the SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2014;24(7):1749–58.Google Scholar
  232. 232.
    Yang M, et al. Mapping MOS Sleep Scale scores to SF-6D utility index. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23(9):2269–82.Google Scholar
  233. 233.
    Richardson SS, Berven S. The development of a model for translation of the Neck Disability Index to utility scores for cost-utility analysis in cervical disorders. Spine J. 2012;12(1):55–62.Google Scholar
  234. 234.
    Zheng Y et al. Mapping the neck disability index to SF-6D in patients with chronic neck pain. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1).Google Scholar
  235. 235.
    Carreon LY, et al. Predicting SF-6D utility scores from the neck disability index and numeric rating scales for neck and arm pain. Spine. 2011;36(6):490–4.Google Scholar
  236. 236.
    Carreon LY, et al. Predicting SF-6D utility scores from the oswestry disability index and numeric rating scales for back and leg pain. Spine. 2009;34(19):2085–9.Google Scholar
  237. 237.
    Hanmer J. Predicting an SF-6D preference-based score using MCS and PCS scores from the SF-12 or SF-36. Value Health. 2009;12(6):958–66.Google Scholar
  238. 238.
    Wang P, et al. Predicting preference-based SF-6D index scores from the SF-8 health survey. Qual Life Res. 2012;22(7):1675–83.Google Scholar
  239. 239.
    Selim AJ, et al. A preference-based measure of health: the VR-6D derived from the veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(8):1337–47.Google Scholar
  240. 240.
    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. 1993;85(5):365–76.Google Scholar
  241. 241.
    Cella DF, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11(3):570–9.Google Scholar
  242. 242.
    Fries JF. The dimensions of health outcomes: the health assessment questionnaire, disability and pain scales. J Rheumatol.1982;9:789–793.Google Scholar
  243. 243.
    Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220–33.Google Scholar
  244. 244.
    Hunt SM et al. The Nottingham health profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med Part A Med Psychol Med Sociol. 1981;15(3):221–229.Google Scholar
  245. 245.
    Cella D, et al. The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Med Care. 2007;45(Suppl 1):S3–11.Google Scholar
  246. 246.
    Group, W. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med. 1998;28(3):551–8.Google Scholar
  247. 247.
    Bowling A, et al. A short measure of quality of life in older age: the performance of the brief Older People’s Quality of Life questionnaire (OPQOL-brief). Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2013;56(1):181–7.Google Scholar
  248. 248.
    Girod I, et al. Development of a revised version of the Women’s Health Questionnaire. Climacteric. 2006;9(1):4–12.Google Scholar
  249. 249.
    Ravens-Sieberer U, et al. Reliability, construct and criterion validity of the KIDSCREEN-10 score: a short measure for children and adolescents’ well-being and health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(10):1487–500.Google Scholar
  250. 250.
    Varni JW, Seid M, Kurtin PS. PedsQL™ 4.0: Reliability and validity of the pediatric quality of life inventory™ version 4.0 generic core scales in healthy and patient populations. Med Care. 2001;39(8):800–12.Google Scholar
  251. 251.
    Goodman R. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2006;38(5):581–6.Google Scholar
  252. 252.
    Oluboyede Y, Hulme C, Hill A. Development and refinement of the WAItE: a new obesity-specific quality of life measure for adolescents. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(8):2025–39.Google Scholar
  253. 253.
    Richardson J, Iezzi A, Maxwell A. Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments: MIC Paper 1 Background, questions, instruments. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics; 2012.Google Scholar
  254. 254.
    Yohai VJ. High breakdown-point and high efficiency robust estimates for regression. Ann Stat. 1987;15:642–656.Google Scholar
  255. 255.
    Secondary Care Analysis (PROMs) and NHS Digital, Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) in England. A guide to PROMs methodology. 2017, NHS Digital: England.Google Scholar
  256. 256.
    Wolfe F, Michaud K. The National Data Bank for rheumatic diseases: a multi-registry rheumatic disease data bank. Rheumatology. 2010;50(1):16–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR)University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations