Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

PREFERRED REPORTING ITEMS FOR STUDIES MAPPING ONTO PREFERENCE-BASED OUTCOME MEASURES: THE MAPS STATEMENT

  • Stavros Petrou (a1), Oliver Rivero-Arias (a2), Helen Dakin (a3), Louise Longworth (a4), Mark Oppe (a5), Robert Froud (a6) and Alastair Gray (a3)...

Abstract

Background: “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 MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies.

Methods: 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.

Results: From the initial de novo list of twenty-nine candidate items, a set of twenty-three essential reporting items was developed. The items are presented numerically and categorized within six sections, namely: (i) title and abstract, (ii) introduction, (iii) methods, (iv) results, (v) discussion, and (vi) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS explanation and elaboration document.

Conclusions: 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 five years’ time.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      PREFERRED REPORTING ITEMS FOR STUDIES MAPPING ONTO PREFERENCE-BASED OUTCOME MEASURES: THE MAPS STATEMENT
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      PREFERRED REPORTING ITEMS FOR STUDIES MAPPING ONTO PREFERENCE-BASED OUTCOME MEASURES: THE MAPS STATEMENT
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      PREFERRED REPORTING ITEMS FOR STUDIES MAPPING ONTO PREFERENCE-BASED OUTCOME MEASURES: THE MAPS STATEMENT
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

References

Hide All
1. Brazier, JE, Yang, Y, Tsuchiya, A, et al. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11:215225.
2. 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.
3. Chuang, LH, Whitehead, SJ. Mapping for economic evaluation. Br Med Bull. 2012;101:115.
4. Longworth, L, Rowen, D. NICE DSU technical support document 10: The use of mapping methods to estimate health state utility values. Sheffield, UK: Decision Support Unit, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, 2011.
5. Moher, D, Schulz, KF, Simera, I, et al. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000217.
6. Moher, D, Simera, I, Schulz, KF, et al. Helping editors, peer reviewers and authors improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting health research. BMC Med. 2008;6:13.
7. Narahari, SR, Ryan, TJ, Aggithaya, MG, et al. Evidence-based approaches for the Ayurvedic traditional herbal formulations: Toward an Ayurvedic CONSORT model. J Altern Complement Med. 2008;14:769776.
8. 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.
9. Bossuyt, PM, Reitsma, JB, Bruns, DE, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:W1W12.
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;19:349357.
11. Vandenbroucke, JP, von Elm, E, Altman, DG, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e297.
12. Liberati, A, Altman, DG, Tetzlaff, J, 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:e1e34.
13. Moher, D, Hopewell, S, Schulz, KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869.
14. Husereau, D, Drummond, M, Petrou, S, 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;16:231250.
15. Fitch, K, Bernstein, S, Aguilar, M, et al. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user's manual. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation; 2001.
16. Petrou, S R-AO, Dakin, H, Longworth, L, Oppe, M, Froud, R, Gray, A. The MAPS reporting statement for studies mapping onto generic preference-based outcome measures: Explanation and elaboration. Pharmacoeconomics. In press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0312-9 (accessed July 28, 2015).
17. Brazier, J, Roberts, J, Deverill, M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271292.
18. Feeny, D, Furlong, W, Boyle, M, et al. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7:490502.
19. Yang, Y, Wong, MY, Lam, CL, et al. Improving the mapping of condition-specific health-related quality of life onto SF-6D score. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:23432353.
20. Lee, L, Kaneva, P, Latimer, E, et al. Mapping the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index to short-form 6D utility scores. J Surg Res. 2014;186:135141.
21. Roset, M, Badia, X, Forsythe, A, et al. Mapping CushingQoL scores onto SF-6D utility values in patients with Cushing's syndrome. Patient. 2013;6:103111.
22. Payakachat, N, Tilford, JM, Kuhlthau, KA, et al. Predicting health utilities for children with autism spectrum disorders. Autism Res. 2014;7:649663.
23. 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;50:446451.
24. Chen, G, McKie, J, Khan, MA, et al. Deriving health utilities from the MacNew Heart Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2014. [Epub ahead of print].
25. Moher, D, Jones, A, Lepage, L, et al. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: A comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA. 2001;285:19921995.
26. Delaney, A, Bagshaw, SM, Ferland, A, et al. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care. 2005;9:R575R582.
27. Plint, AC, Moher, D, Morrison, A, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust. 2006;185:263267.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed