Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
‘Mapping’ onto generic preference-based outcome measures is increasingly being used as a means of generating health utilities for use within health economic evaluations. Despite publication of technical guides for the conduct of mapping research, guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. The MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards (MAPS) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies.
In the absence of previously published reporting checklists or reporting guidance documents, a de novo list of reporting items was created by a working group comprised of six health economists and one Delphi methodologist. 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.
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 (1) title and abstract; (2) introduction; (3) methods; (4) results; (5) discussion; and (6) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS explanation and elaboration document.
It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the MAPS statement is being co-published by seven health economics and quality of life journals, and broader endorsement is encouraged. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in 5 years’ time.
Longworth, L., & Rowen, D. (2011). 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.
Narahari, S. R., Ryan, T. J., Aggithaya, M. G., Bose, K. S., & Prasanna, K. S. (2008). Evidence-based approaches for the Ayurvedic traditional herbal formulations: Toward an Ayurvedic CONSORT model. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 14(6), 769–776. doi: 10.1089/acm.2007.0818. CrossRefPubMed
Vandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., et al. (2007). Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med, 4(10), e297. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297. PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), e1–e34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006. CrossRefPubMed
Husereau, D., Drummond, M., Petrou, S., Carswell, C., Moher, D., Greenberg, D., et al. (2013). 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, 16(2), 231–250. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002. CrossRefPubMed
Fitch, K., Bernstein, S., Aguilar, M., Burnand, B., LaCalle, J., Lazaro, P., van het Loo, M., McDonnell, J., Vader, J., & Kahan, J. (2001). The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user’s manual (Vols. 1, 2). Santa Monica: RAND.
Petrou, S., R.-A. O., Dakin, H., Longworth, L., Oppe, M., Froud, R., & Gray, A. (2015). The MAPS reporting statement for studies mapping onto generic preference-based outcome measures: Explanation and elaboration. Pharmacoeconomics. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0312-9
Chen, G., McKie, J., Khan, M. A., & Richardson, J. R. (2014). Deriving health utilities from the MacNew Heart Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing,. doi: 10.1177/1474515114536096.
Plint, A. C., Moher, D., Morrison, A., Schulz, K., Altman, D. G., Hill, C., et al. (2006). Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Medical Journal of Australia, 185(5), 263–267. PubMed
- Preferred reporting items for studies mapping onto preference-based outcome measures: the MAPS statement
- Springer International Publishing