| Title |
Health-related quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D in the prevention, screening and management of cervical disease: A systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Quality of Life Research, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11136-017-1628-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. Ó Céilleachair, J. F. O’Mahony, M. O’Connor, J. O’Leary, C. Normand, C. Martin, L. Sharp |
| Abstract |
Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of screening can be highly sensitive to the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) effects of screen tests and subsequent treatment. Accordingly, accurate assessment of HRQoL is essential. We reviewed the literature regarding HRQoL in cervical prevention and management in order to appraise the current evidence regarding this important input to CEA. We searched the MEDLINE, Scopus and EconLit databases for studies that estimated HRQoL in cervical cancer prevention and management published January 1995-December 2015. The primary inclusion criterion was for studies that assess HRQoL using the EQ-5D. Data were abstracted from eligible studies on setting, elicitation group, sample size, elicitation instruments, health state valuations, study design and follow-up. We assessed the quality and comparability of the studies with a particular focus on the HRQoL reported across states and groups. Fifteen papers met the inclusion criteria. Most used patient elicitation groups (n = 11), 2 used the general public and 2 used a mix of both. Eight studies were cross-sectional and seven were longitudinal. Six studies used both the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-VAS together with other measures of overall HRQoL or condition-specific instruments. Extensive heterogeneity was observed across study characteristics. Our results reveal the challenges of sourcing reliable estimates of HRQoL for use in CEAs of cervical cancer prevention and treatment. The EQ-5D appears insufficiently sensitive for some health states. A more general problem is the paucity of HRQoL estimates for many health states and their change over time. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 10 | 67% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 73% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 15 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 October 2017.
All research outputs
#3,094,480
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#259
of 2,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,896
of 315,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#13
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,911 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,536 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.