McMaster University

About: McMaster University is a education organization based out in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 41361 authors who have published 101269 publications receiving 4251422 citations.

The Health Utilities Index (HUI®): concepts, measurement properties and applications

Abstract: This is a review of the Health Utilities Index (HUI®) multi-attribute health-status classification systems, and single- and multi-attribute utility scoring systems. HUI refers to both HUI Mark 2 (HUI2) and HUI Mark 3 (HUI3) instruments. The classification systems provide compact but comprehensive frameworks within which to describe health status. The multi-attribute utility functions provide all the information required to calculate single-summary scores of health-related quality of life (HRQL) for each health state defined by the classification systems. The use of HUI in clinical studies for a wide variety of conditions in a large number of countries is illustrated. HUI provides comprehensive, reliable, responsive and valid measures of health status and HRQL for subjects in clinical studies. Utility scores of overall HRQL for patients are also used in cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses. Population norm data are available from numerous large general population surveys. The widespread use of HUI facilitates the interpretation of results and permits comparisons of disease and treatment outcomes, and comparisons of long-term sequelae at the local, national and international levels.

Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments

Abstract: Lack of appropriate reporting of methodological details has previously been shown to distort risk of bias assessments in randomized controlled trials. The same might be true for observational studies. The goal of this study was to compare the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) assessment for risk of bias between reviewers and authors of cohort studies included in a published systematic review on risk factors for severe outcomes in patients infected with influenza. Cohort studies included in the systematic review and published between 2008–2011 were included. The corresponding or first authors completed a survey covering all NOS items. Results were compared with the NOS assessment applied by reviewers of the systematic review. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using kappa (K) statistics. Authors of 65/182 (36%) studies completed the survey. The overall NOS score was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the reviewers’ assessment (median = 6; interquartile range [IQR] 6–6) compared with those by authors (median = 5, IQR 4–6). Inter-rater reliability by item ranged from slight (K = 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.19, 0.48) to poor (K = −0.06, 95% CI = −0.22, 0.10). Reliability for the overall score was poor (K = −0.004, 95% CI = −0.11, 0.11). Differences in assessment and low agreement between reviewers and authors suggest the need to contact authors for information not published in studies when applying the NOS in systematic reviews.