Top

PharmacoEconomics

Published in:

01-10-2015 | Practical Application

The MAPS Reporting Statement for Studies Mapping onto Generic Preference-Based Outcome Measures: Explanation and Elaboration

Authors: Stavros Petrou, Oliver Rivero-Arias, Helen Dakin, Louise Longworth, Mark Oppe, Robert Froud, Alastair Gray

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 10/2015

Abstract

Background

The process of “mapping” is increasingly being used to predict health utilities, for application within health economic evaluations, using data on other indicators or measures of health. Guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking.

Objective

The overall objective of this research was to develop a checklist of essential items, which authors should consider when reporting mapping studies. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting by researchers. This paper provides a detailed explanation and elaboration of the items contained within the MAPS statement.

Methods

In the absence of previously published reporting checklists or reporting guidance documents, a de novo list of reporting items and accompanying explanations was created. A two-round, modified Delphi survey, with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, was used to identify a list of essential reporting items from this larger list.

Results

From the initial de novo list of 29 candidate items, a set of 23 essential reporting items was developed. The items are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely, (i) title and abstract, (ii) introduction, (iii) methods, (iv) results, (v) discussion and (vi) other. For each item, we summarise the recommendation, illustrate it using an exemplar of good reporting practice identified from the published literature, and provide a detailed explanation to accompany the recommendation.

Conclusions

It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will promote clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. It is targeted at researchers developing mapping algorithms, peer reviewers and editors involved in the manuscript review process for mapping studies, and the funders of the research. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in 5 years’ time.

Available only for authorised users

Brazier JE, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A, Rowen DL. 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. doi:10.1007/s10198-009-0168-z.CrossRefPubMed

Dakin H. Review of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:151. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-11-151.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Chuang LH, Whitehead SJ. Mapping for economic evaluation. Br Med Bull. 2012;101:1–15. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldr049.CrossRefPubMed

Longworth L, Rowen D. NICE DSU technical support document 10: the use of mapping methods to estimate health state utility values. Sheffield: Decision Support Unit, ScHARR, University of Sheffield; 2011.

Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000217. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Moher D, Simera I, Schulz KF, Hoey J, Altman DG. Helping editors, peer reviewers and authors improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting health research. BMC Med. 2008;6:13. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-6-13.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Narahari SR, Ryan TJ, Aggithaya MG, Bose KS, Prasanna KS. Evidence-based approaches for the Ayurvedic traditional herbal formulations: toward an Ayurvedic CONSORT model. J Altern Complement Med. 2008;14(6):769–76. doi:10.1089/acm.2007.0818.CrossRefPubMed

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;7:33. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-7-33.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(1):W1–12.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e297. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

12.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1–34. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. doi:10.1136/bmj.c869.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

14.

Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)—explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(2):231–50. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Fitch K, Bernstein S, Aguilar M, Burnand B, LaCalle J, Lazaro P, van het Loo M, McDonnell J, Vader J, Kahan J. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User’s Manual. Santa Monica; 2001.

16.

Badia X, Roset M, Valassi E, Franz H, Forsythe A, Webb SM. 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. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0396-7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

17.

Khan KA, Madan J, Petrou S, Lamb SE. Mapping between the Roland Morris Questionnaire and generic preference-based measures. Value Health. 2014;17(6):686–95. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2014.07.001.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Wong HL, Truong D, Mahamed A, Davidian C, Rana Z, Einarson TR. Quality of structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association: a 10-year follow-up study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21(4):467–73.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Kaambwa B, Billingham L, Bryan S. Mapping utility scores from the Barthel index. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(2):231–41. doi:10.1007/s10198-011-0364-5.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Cheung YB, Tan LC, Lau PN, Au WL, Luo N. Mapping the eight-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) to the EQ-5D utility index. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(9):1173–81. doi:10.1007/s11136-008-9392-8.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Khan KA, Petrou S, Rivero-Arias O, Walters SJ, Boyle SE. Mapping EQ-5D utility scores from the PedsQL generic core scales. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(7):693–706. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0153-y.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Dakin H, Gray A, Murray D. Mapping analyses to estimate EQ-5D utilities and responses based on Oxford Knee Score. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(3):683–94. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0189-4.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

23.

Hernandez Alava M, Wailoo A, Wolfe F, Michaud K. The relationship between EQ-5D, HAQ and pain in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013;52(5):944–50. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kes400.

24.

Hawton A, Green C, Telford CJ, Wright DE, Zajicek JP. The use of multiple sclerosis condition-specific measures to inform health policy decision-making: mapping from the MSWS-12 to the EQ-5D. Mult Scler. 2012;18(6):853–61. doi:10.1177/1352458511429319.CrossRefPubMed

25.

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. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.03.003.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Young MK, Ng SK, Mellick G, Scuffham PA. Mapping of the PDQ-39 to EQ-5D scores in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(5):1065–72. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0231-6.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Gray AM, Rivero-Arias O, Clarke PM. Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Med Decis Mak. 2006;26(1):18–29. doi:10.1177/0272989X05284108.CrossRef

28.

Ramos-Goñi J, Rivero-Arias O, Dakin H. Response mapping to translate health outcomes into the generic health-related quality of life instrument EQ-5D: introducing the mrs2eq and oks2eq commands. Stata J. 2013;13:474–91.

29.

Payakachat N, Summers KH, Pleil AM, Murawski MM, Thomas J 3rd, Jennings K, 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. doi:10.1007/s11136-009-9499-6.CrossRefPubMed

30.

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. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.10.010.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Eriksson L JE, Kettaneh-Wold N, Trygg J, Wikström C, Wold S. Appendix I: model derivation, interpretation and validation. Multi- and megavariate data analysis part 1: basic principles and applications. 2nd ed. Umea: MKS Umetrics AB; 2006.

32.

Blum A KA, Langford J, editor. Beating the hold-out: bounds for K-fold and progressive cross-validation. In: 12th annual conference on computational learning theory. New York: ACM; 1999.

33.

Browne C, Brazier J, Carlton J, Alavi Y, Jofre-Bonet M. Estimating quality-adjusted life years from patient-reported visual functioning. Eye (Lond). 2012;26(10):1295–301. doi:10.1038/eye.2012.137.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

34.

Buxton MJ, Lacey LA, Feagan BG, Niecko T, Miller DW, Townsend RJ. 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. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00171.x.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Dakin H, Petrou S, Haggard M, Benge S, Williamson I. Mapping analyses to estimate health utilities based on responses to the OM8-30 Otitis Media Questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(1):65–80. doi:10.1007/s11136-009-9558-z.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Lawrence WF, Fleishman JA. Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 Health Survey in a nationally representative sample. Med Decis Mak. 2004;24(2):160–9. doi:10.1177/0272989X04264015.CrossRef

37.

Longworth L, Yang Y, Young T, Mulhern B, Hernandez Alava M, Mukuria C, et al. Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(9):1–224. doi:10.3310/hta18090.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Chan KK, Willan AR, Gupta M, Pullenayegum E. Underestimation of uncertainties in health utilities derived from mapping algorithms involving health-related quality-of-life measures: statistical explanations and potential remedies. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34(7):863–72. doi:10.1177/0272989X13517750.CrossRef

39.

Ara R, Wailoo A. Using health state utility values in models exploring the cost-effectiveness of health technologies. Value Health. 2012;15(6):971–4. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.05.003.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Lundberg L, Johannesson M, Isacson DG, Borgquist L. The relationship between health-state utilities and the SF-12 in a general population. Med Decis Mak. 1999;19(2):128–40.CrossRef

41.

Rowen D, Brazier J, Roberts J. Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D index: how reliable is the relationship? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7:27. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-7-27.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

42.

Chen G, McKie J, Khan MA, Richardson JR. Deriving health utilities from the MacNew Heart Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2014. doi:10.1177/1474515114536096.

43.

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. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00405.x.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Limone BL, Sidovar MF, Coleman CI. Estimation of the effect of dalfampridine-ER on health utility by mapping the MSWS-12 to the EQ-5D in multiple sclerosis patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:105. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-11-105.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

45.

Goldsmith KA, Dyer MT, Buxton MJ, Sharples LD. Mapping of the EQ-5D index from clinical outcome measures and demographic variables in patients with coronary heart disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:54. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-54.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

46.

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.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7(6):490–502.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Yang Y, Wong MY, Lam CL, Wong CK. Improving the mapping of condition-specific health-related quality of life onto SF-6D score. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2343–53. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0668-x.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Lee L, Kaneva P, Latimer E, Feldman LS. Mapping the gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index to short-form 6D utility scores. J Surg Res. 2014;186(1):135–41. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2013.08.006.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Roset M, Badia X, Forsythe A, Webb SM. Mapping CushingQoL scores onto SF-6D utility values in patients with Cushing’s syndrome. Patient. 2013;6(2):103–11. doi:10.1007/s40271-013-0010-7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

51.

Payakachat N, Tilford JM, Kuhlthau KA, van Exel NJ, Kovacs E, Bellando J, et al. Predicting health utilities for children with autism spectrum disorders. Autism Res. 2014;7(6):649–63. doi:10.1002/aur.1409.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Goldfeld KS, Hamel MB, Mitchell SL. Mapping health status measures to a utility measure in a study of nursing home residents with advanced dementia. Med Care. 2012;50(5):446–51. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182407e0d.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

53.

Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L, Group C. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA. 2001;285(15):1992–5.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, Manns B, Laupland KB, Doig CJ. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care. 2005;9(5):R575–82. doi:10.1186/cc3803.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

55.

Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, Schulz K, Altman DG, Hill C, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust. 2006;185(5):263–7.PubMed

Title: The MAPS Reporting Statement for Studies Mapping onto Generic Preference-Based Outcome Measures: Explanation and Elaboration
Authors: Stavros Petrou
Oliver Rivero-Arias
Helen Dakin
Louise Longworth
Mark Oppe
Robert Froud
Alastair Gray
Publication date: 01-10-2015
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: PharmacoEconomics / Issue 10/2015
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0312-9

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

The MAPS Reporting Statement for Studies Mapping onto Generic Preference-Based Outcome Measures: Explanation and Elaboration

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2015

Adjusting for Baseline Covariates in Net Benefit Regression: How You Adjust Matters

Systematic Literature Review of the Methods Used to Compare Newer Second-Generation Agents for the Management of Schizophrenia: A focus on Health Technology Assessment

Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement

A Review of the Development and Application of Generic Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments for Paediatric Populations

Pre-eclampsia Diagnosis and Treatment Options: A Review of Published Economic Assessments

Cost-Effectiveness of Proton Pump Inhibitor Co-Therapy in Patients Taking Aspirin for Secondary Prevention of Ischemic Stroke