A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of preference-based utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with HIV/AIDS. | LitMetric

Objective: This article compares preference-based utilities from the multiattribute utility instrument 15D with those derived from the EQ-5D and the Short Form 36 (SF-6D) in patients with HIV/AIDS. In particular, we wanted to examine if the finer descriptive system of the 15D would result in better discriminative capacity or responsiveness.

Methods: In a prospective observational study of 60 Norwegian patients with HIV/AIDS from two hospitals, the authors compared scores, assessed associations with disease staging systems, and assessed test-retest reliability and responsiveness of the instruments.

Results: On average, the 15D gave higher utility scores than the other two measures, the mean utility scores were: 15D--0.86, SF-6D--0.73, and EQ-5D Index--0.77. Test-retest reliability was acceptable for all measures, with intraclass correlation coefficients between 0.78 and 0.94. The correlation between scores of the 3 scales was substantial (p = 0.74-0.80). There was no major difference in responsiveness between the measures.

Conclusions: The different measures gave different utility values in this sample of patients with HIV/AIDS, although many of the measurement properties were similar. There was no evidence for better discriminative capacity or responsiveness for the 15D, than for the two other multiattribute measures.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-3211-7DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

patients hiv/aids
16
preference-based utilities
8
sf-6d patients
8
better discriminative
8
discriminative capacity
8
test-retest reliability
8
utility scores
8
measures utility
8
15d
5
comparison preference-based
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!