MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205640464 · doi:10.1186/s12885-021-09140-5

Meta-analysis of health state utility values measured by EuroQol 5-dimensions (EQ5D) questionnaire in Chinese women with breast cancer

2022· review· en· W4205640464 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tamlyn Rautenberg, Brent Hodgkinson, Ute Zerwes, Martin Downes

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cancer · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerConfidence intervalMeta-analysisInternal medicineGynecologyCancerDemographyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background To synthesise EQ5D health state utility values in Chinese women with breast cancer for parameterising a cost utility model. Methods Eligible studies had to report health state utility values measured by EQ-5D in Chinese women diagnosed with breast cancer. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). Data from single arm studies was pooled using meta-analysis of single proportions to provide overall point estimates and 95% confidence intervals for fixed and random effects models using the inverse variance and Der Simonian-Laird methods respectively. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I 2 statistic and sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were conducted. Results Five papers were included, when all studies were combined (n = 4,100) the mean utility (95% confidence interval) for random effects model was 0.83 (0.78, 0.89); for TNM 0-1 0.85 (0.75, 0.95); for TNM II 0.85 (0.78, 0.93); for TNM III 0.83 (0.77, 0.90) and for TNM IV 0.73 (0.63, 0.82).The utility of patients in State P (first year after primary breast cancer) 0.84 (0.80, 0.88); in State R (first year after recurrence) 0.73 (0.69, 0.76), in State S (second and following years after primary breast cancer or recurrence) 0.88 (0.83, 0.92); and in State M (metastatic disease) 0.78 (0.74, 0.82). Mean utility for duration since diagnosis 13 to 36 months was 0.88 (0.80, 0.96, I 2 =95%); for 37 to 60 months 0.89 (0.82, 0.96, I 2 =90%); for more than 60 months 0.86 (0.76, 0.96, I 2 =90%). Mean utility for chemotherapy was 0.86 (0.79, 0.92, I 2 =97%); for radiotherapy 0.83 (0.69, 0.96, I 2 =97%); surgery 0.80 (0.69, 0.91, I 2 =98%); concurrent chemo-radiation 0.70 (0.60, 0.81, I 2 =86%) and endocrine therapy 0.90 (0.83, 0.97, I 2 =91%). Conclusion: This study synthesises the evidence for health state utility values for Chinese women with breast cancer which is useful to inform cost utility models.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.037
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.564
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.075 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC CancerSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207