James SL, Abate D, Abate KH, Abay SM, Abbafati C, Abbasi N, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 Diseases and Injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392(10159):1789–858.

Article  Google Scholar 

Knezevic NN, Candido KD, Vlaeyen JWS, Van Zundert J, Cohen SP. Low back pain. Lancet. 2021;398(10294):78–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00733-9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Bang H, Zhao H. Median-based incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). J Stat Theory Pract. 2012;6(3):428–42.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Heintz E, Gerber-Grote A, Ghabri S, Hamers FF, Rupel VP, Slabe-Erker R, et al. Is there a european view on health economic evaluations? results from a synopsis of methodological guidelines used in the EUnetHTA partner countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(1):59–76.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: The basics. Value Heal. 2009;12(SUPPL. 1):S5-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00515.x.

Article  Google Scholar 

Klarman HE, Francis JO, Rosenthal GD. Cost effectiveness analysis applied to the treatment of chronic renal disease. Med Care. 1968;6(1):48–54.

Article  Google Scholar 

Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43(3):203–20.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: Mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Heal. 2012;15(5):708–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008.

Article  Google Scholar 

Brazier J, Ara R, Rowen D, Chevrou-Severac H. A review of generic preference-based measures for use in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(s1):21–31.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Whynes DK, McCahon RA, Ravenscroft A, Hodgkinson V, Evley R, Hardman JG. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D health-related quality-of-life instrument in assessing low back pain. Value Heal. 2013;16(1):124–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.09.003.

Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Hanmer J, Feeny D, Fischhoff B, Hays RD, Hess R, Pilkonis PA, et al. The PROMIS of QALYs. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;15–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0321-6

Hanmer J, Dewitt B. The Development of a Preference-based Scoring System for PROMIS® (PROPr): A Technical Report Version 1.4. 2017.

Pan T, Mulhern B, Viney R, Norman R, Tran-Duy A, Hanmer J, et al. Evidence on the relationship between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D: a literature review. Qual Life Res. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02911-4

Manning K, Kauffman BY, Rogers AH, Garey L, Zvolensky MJ. Fatigue severity and fatigue sensitivity: relations to anxiety, depression, pain catastrophizing, and pain severity among adults with severe fatigue and chronic low back pain. Behav Med. 2022;48(3):181–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kelly GA, Blake C, Power CK, Okeeffe D, Fullen BM. The association between chronic low back pain and sleep: a systematic review. Clin J Pain. 2011;27(2):169–81.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Corti EJ, Gasson N, Loftus AM. Cognitive profile and mild cognitive impairment in people with chronic lower back pain. Brain Cogn. 2021;151:105737.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Martí-Pastor M, Pont A, Ávila M, Garin O, Vilagut G, Forero CG, et al. Head-to-head comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in general population health surveys. Popul Health Metr. 2018;16(1):1–11.

Article  Google Scholar 

Greene ME, Rader KA, Garellick G, Malchau H, Freiberg AA, Rolfson O. The EQ-5D-5L improves on the EQ-5D-3L for health-related quality-of-life assessment in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(11):3383–90.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Dewitt B, Feeny D, Fischhoff B, Cella D, Hays RD, Hess R, et al. Estimation of a preference-based summary score for the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system: The PROMIS®-Preference (PROPr) scoring system. Med Decis Mak. 2018;38(6):683–98.

Article  Google Scholar 

Hanmer J, Dewitt B, Yu L, Tsevat J, Roberts M, Revicki D, et al. Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS- preference scoring system. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(7):1–13.

Article  Google Scholar 

Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item Response Theory For Psychologists. Psychology Press; 2013.

Rupp AA, Zumbo BD. Understanding parameter invariance in unidimensional IRT models. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006;66(1):63–84.

Article  Google Scholar 

PROMIS Cooperative Group. PROMIS ® Instrument Maturity Model. 2012. p. 1–4. Available from: http://www.healthmeasures.net/images/PROMIS/PROMISStandards_Vers_2_0_MaturityModelOnly_508.pdf

Fries JF, Witter J, Rose M, Cella D, Khanna D, Morgan-DeWitt E. Item response theory, computerized adaptive testing, and promis: assessment of physical function. J Rheumatol. 2014;41(1):153–8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Choi SW, Schalet B, Cook KF, Cella D. Establishing a common metric for depressive symptoms: linking the BDI-II, CES-D, and PHQ-9 to PROMIS depression. Psychol Assess. 2014;26(2):513–27.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Hanmer J, Cella D, Feeny D, Fischhoff B, Hays RD, Hess R, et al. Selection of key health domains from PROMIS® for a generic preference-based scoring system. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(12):1–9.

Article  Google Scholar 

NICE. NICE Guidelines. 2013. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. Available from: nice.org.uk/process/pmg9

Rencz F, Gulácsi L, Drummond M, Golicki D, Prevolnik Rupel V, Simon J, et al. EQ-5D in central and Eastern Europe: 2000–2015. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(11):2693–710.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kennedy-Martin M, Slaap B, Herdman M, van Reenen M, Kennedy-Martin T, Greiner W, et al. Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. Eur J Heal Econ. 2020;21(8):1245–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8.

Article  Google Scholar 

Thompson NR, Lapin BR, Katzan IL. Utilities Estimated from PROMIS Scales for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Stroke. 2023;1–15.

Rencz F, Brodszky V, Janssen MF. A direct comparison of the measurement properties of EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-29+2 and PROMIS global health instruments and eq-5d-5l and propr utilities in a general population sample. Value Heal. 2023;26(7):1045–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2023.02.002.

Article  Google Scholar 

Klapproth CP, Sidey-Gibbons CJ, Valderas JM, Rose M, Fischer F. Comparison of the PROMIS Preference Score (PROPr) and EQ-5D-5L index value in general population samples in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. Value Heal. 2022;25(5):824–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.012.

Article  Google Scholar 

Klapproth CP, Fischer F, Merbach M, Rose M, Obbarius A. Psychometric properties of the PROMIS Preference score (PROPr) in patients with rheumatological and psychosomatic conditions. BMC Rheumatol. 2022;6(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41927-022-00245-3.

Article  Google Scholar 

Pan T, Mulhern B, Viney R, Norman R, Hanmer J, Devlin N. A comparison of PROPr and EQ-5D-5L value sets. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;40(0123456789):297–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01109-3.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Cella D, Choi SW, Condon DM, Schalet B, Hays RD, Rothrock NE, et al. PROMIS® adult health profiles: efficient short-form measures of seven health domains. Value Heal. 2019;22(5):537–44.

Article  Google Scholar 

Dewitt B, Jalal H, Hanmer J. Computing PROPr Utility Scores for PROMIS® profile instruments. Value Heal. 2019;23(3):370–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.2752.

Article  Google Scholar 

Fairbank JCT, Pynsent PB. The oswestry disability index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(22):2940–53.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6(4):284–90.

Article  Google Scholar 

Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–10.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Zeng X, Sui M, Liu B, Yang H, Liu R, Tan RLY, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in Six Commonly diagnosed cancers. Patient. 2021;14(2):209–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00466-z.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Zhu J, Yan XX, Liu CC, Wang H, Wang L, Cao SM, et al. Comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L performance in common cancers: suggestions for instrument choosing. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(3):841–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02636-w.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hinkle D, Wiersma W, Jurs S. Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. In: 5th ed. Boston, Massachusetts, USA, Massachusetts, USA: Houghton Mifflin; 2003.

Cohen J (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates P, editor. Hillsdale, NJ; 1988.

Janssen MF, Bonsel GJ, Luo N. Is EQ-5D-5L better than EQ-5D-3L? a head-to-head comparison of descriptive systems and value sets from seven countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):675–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0623-8.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Liang MH, Larson MG, Cullen KE, Schwartz JA. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum. 1985;28(5):542–7.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Gamper EM, Cottone F, Sommer K, Norman R, King M, Breccia M, et al. The EORTC QLU-C10D was more efficient in detecting clinical known group differences in myelodysplastic syndromes than the EQ-5D-3L. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;68–70.

Kutchins H, Kirk SA. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association; 1994. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/40.2.286

Klapproth CP, Fischer F, Rose M, Karsten MM. Health state utility differed systematically in breast cancer patients between the EORTC QLU-C10D and the PROMIS Preference Score (PROPr). J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;152:101–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Zhang J, Dewitt B, Tang E, Breitner D, Saqib M, Li D, et al. Evaluation of PROMIS Preference Scoring System (PROPr) in patients undergoing hemodialysis or kidney transplant. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2021;16(9):1328–36.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central