↓ Skip to main content

Review and critical appraisal of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database and application of the MAPS statement

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Review and critical appraisal of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database and application of the MAPS statement
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12955-018-0857-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen Dakin, Lucy Abel, Richéal Burns, Yaling Yang

Abstract

The Health Economics Research Centre (HERC) Database of Mapping Studies was established in 2013, based on a systematic review of studies developing mapping algorithms predicting EQ-5D. The Mapping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards (MAPS) statement was published in 2015 to improve reporting of mapping studies. We aimed to update the systematic review and assess the extent to which recently-published studies mapping condition-specific quality of life or clinical measures to the EQ-5D follow the guidelines published in the MAPS Reporting Statement. A published systematic review was updated using the original inclusion criteria to include studies published by December 2016. We included studies reporting novel algorithms mapping from any clinical measure or patient-reported quality of life measure to either the EQ-5D-3L or EQ-5D-5L. Titles and abstracts of all identified studies and the full text of papers published in 2016 were assessed against the MAPS checklist. The systematic review identified 144 mapping studies reporting 190 algorithms mapping from 110 different source instruments to EQ-5D. Of the 17 studies published in 2016, nine (53%) had titles that followed the MAPS statement guidance, although only two (12%) had abstracts that fully addressed all MAPS items. When the full text of these papers was assessed against the complete MAPS checklist, only two studies (12%) were found to fulfil or partly fulfil all criteria. Of the 141 papers (across all years) that included abstracts, the items on the MAPS statement checklist that were fulfilled by the largest number of studies comprised having a structured abstract (95%) and describing target instruments (91%) and source instruments (88%). The number of published mapping studies continues to increase. Our updated database provides a convenient way to identify mapping studies for use in cost-utility analysis. Most recent studies do not fully address all items on the MAPS checklist.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 17%
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 12 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 33%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 15%
Psychology 4 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 16 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 15 February 2018.
All research outputs
#1,655,450
of 15,442,255 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#107
of 1,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,317
of 368,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,442,255 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,660 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 368,905 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them