Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 53, Issue 1 , Pages 39-45 , January 2000

Comparing treatment valuations between and within subjects in clinical trials Does it make a difference?

  • Erwin Birnie

      Affiliations

    • Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center, Room J2-224, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Center, Room J2-224, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author
    • ,
  • Wilma M. Monincx

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Center, Room J2-224, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Hans A. Zondervan

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Center, Room J2-224, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Patrick M.M. Bossuyt

      Affiliations

    • Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center, Room J2-224, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Gouke J. Bonsel

      Affiliations

    • Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center, Room J2-224, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Received 6 June 1997 ,Accepted 20 April 1999.

References 

  1. Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chron Dis. 1987;40:593–600
  2. Loomes G, McKenzie L. The use of QALYs in health care decision making. Soc Sci Med. 1989;28:299–308
  3. Berwick DM, Weinstein MC. What do patients value? Willingness to pay for ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Med Care. 1985;23:881–893
  4. Redelmeier DA, Rozin P, Kahneman D. Understanding patients' decisions. Cognitive and emotional perspectives. JAMA. 1993;270:72–76
  5. O'Boyle C. Making subjectivity scientific. Lancet. 1995;345:602
  6. Harris R, Olewiler N. The welfare economics of ex post optimality Economica 1979;46:137–47.
  7. Hausman D, McPherson M. Preference, belief, and welfare. Am Econ Rev. 1994;84:396–400
  8. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S. Knowing what you want (measuring labile values). In:  Bell DE,  Raiffa H,  Tversky A editor. Decision Making. Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive Interactions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988;p. 398–421
  9. Christensen-Szalanski JJJ. Discount functions and the measurement of patients' values. Women's decisions during childbirth. Med Decis Making. 1984;4:47–58
  10. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Sutherland HJ, Ciampi A, Etezadi-Amoli J, Boyd NF, Till JE. The assessment of values in laryngeal cancer (reliability of measurement methods). J Chron Dis. 1984;37:283–291
  11. O'Connor AMC, Boyd NF, Warde P, Stolbach L, Till JE. Eliciting preferences for alternative drug therapies in oncology (influence of treatment outcome description, elicitation technique and treatment experience on preferences). J Chron Dis. 1987;40:811–818
  12. Henshaw RC, Naji SA, Russel IT, Templeton AA. Comparison of medical abortion with surgical vacuum aspiration (women's preferences and acceptability of treatment). Br Med J. 1993;307:714–717
  13. Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chron Dis. 1978;31:697–704
  14. Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Heasman KZ, Tritchler DL, Cummings BJ. Whose utilities for decision analysis?. Med Decis Making. 1990;10:58–67
  15. Winterfeldt D von, Edwards W. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. pp. 226–232.
  16. Fletcher AE, Hunt BM, Bulpitt CJ. Evaluation of quality of life in clinical trials of cardiovascular disease. J Chron Dis. 1987;40:557–566
  17. Bowe TR. Measuring patient preferences (rating scale versus standard gamble). Med Decis Making. 1995;15:283–285
  18. Hilden J. The nonexistence of interpersonal utility scales. A missing link in medical decision theory?. Med Decis Making. 1985;5:215–228
  19. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-II (scaling methods). J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:459–471
  20. Angell M. Patients' preferences in randomized clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1984;310:1385–1387
  21. Dehn TCB. Patients are unwilling to enter randomised trials. Br Med J. 1994;309:126
  22. Silverman WA, Altman DG. Patients' preferences and randomised trials. Lancet. 1996;347:171–174
  23. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, McGreal MJ, Thiel EC, Fine S, Erlichman C. Patients' willingness to enter clinical trials (measuring the association with perceived benefit and preference for decision participation). Soc Sci Med. 1991;32:35–42
  24. Brewin CR, Bradley C. Patient preferences and randomised clinical trials. Br Med J. 1989;299:313–315
  25. Silverman WA. Patients' preferences and randomised trials. Lancet. 1994;343:1586
  26. Gore SM. The consumer principle of randomisation. Lancet. 1994;343:58
  27. Harvey I, West R, Newcombe R. Patient preferences and randomised clinical trials. Br Med J. 1989;299:684–685
  28. Zelen M. A new design for randomized clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1979;300:1242–1245

PII: S0895-4356(99)00099-2

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 53, Issue 1 , Pages 39-45 , January 2000

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution