MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388228587 · doi:10.1111/dme.15251

Health state utility values for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2023· review· en· W4388228587 on OpenAlexaff
Shitong Xie, Meixuan Li, Xin Chen, Weihua Guo, Xinran Liu, Kehu Yang, Jing Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetic Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineType 1 diabetesMeta-analysisMEDLINETime-trade-offPediatricsCost–utility analysisQuality-adjusted life yearProxy (statistics)Confidence intervalDiabetes mellitusQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicineCost effectivenessStatisticsEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is one of the most burdensome chronic diseases in the world. Health utility values are an important tool for quantifying this disease burden and conducting cost-utility analyses. This review aimed to derive a reference set of health utility values for children and adolescents with T1DM. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception to March 2023 for health utility values of T1DM children and adolescents (aged ≤18 years) measured using direct and indirect preference elicitation approaches. Utility estimates were pooled by meta-analyses with subgroup analyses to evaluate differences by populations and elicitation approaches. RESULTS: Six studies involving 1276 participants were included in this study. Meta-analysis showed the overall utility value of children and adolescents with T1DM was 0.91 (95% CI 0.89-0.93). The utility value of T1DM children and adolescents with complications was 0.90 (95% CI 0.88-0.92), which was lower than those without complications (0.96, 95% CI 0.95-0.97). The utility value of children (aged <13 years) was higher than adolescents (aged 13-18 years) (0.90 vs. 0.85). The utility value measured by the EQ-5D-3L (0.91) was higher than the HUI3 (0.89), the SF-6Dv1 (0.83), and the time trade-off (0.81). The parent proxy-reported was similar to the patient self-reported (0.91 vs. 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: This study developed a reference set of pooled utility estimates for children and adolescents with T1DM, which is helpful for understanding the overall health status of T1DM and conducting economic evaluations. Further studies are needed to explore the utilities of T1DM with different types of complications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.379
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.085 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetic MedicineSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207