Current standard values of health utility scores for evaluating cost-effectiveness in liver disease: A meta-analysis

Table 2 List of previous studies and health utility assessments

Ref.	Subjects and countries	EQ-5D-5L	EQ-VAS	HUI-mark	SF-36	Type of SF-36	Others
Jenkinson et al[16]	Normal population from United Kingdom				O	RAND®
Ratcliffe et al[17]	Normal population/Liver transplantation patients from United Kingdom	Δ	Δ		O	Not described1
Chong et al[18]	Normal population from Canada	O	Δ	Δ	Δ1
Grieve et al[19]	Population from United Kingdom	O
Bondini et al[20]	Population from United States			O	Δ1		CLDQ
Dan et al[21]	Population from United States			O			SF-6D
Björnsson et al[22]	Population from Sweden	O			O	Not described1
Hsu et al[23]	Population from Vancouver				O	v2	HQLQv2
McDonald et al[24]	Population from United Kingdom	O
Scalone et al[25]	Population from United Kingdom	O	Δ
Vahidnia et al[26]	Population from United States	Δ	O
Kaishima et al[27]	Population from Japan	O
Blanco et al[28]	Population from Spain	Δ	O
Kesen et al[29]	HCV patients from Turkey				O	Not described1	HADS
Cortesi et al[30]	Population from Italy	O	O
Karimi Sari et al[31]	HCV patients from Iran				O	Not described1
Zanone et al[32]	HCV patients from Italy	O

¹Modified scale excluding from the analyses.

O: The eligible study including the analyses; Δ: The excluding outcomes due to different conditions; EQ-5D-5L: EuroQol 5-dimensions 5-levels; EQ-VAS: EuroQol-visual analogue scale; HUI-mark: Health utility index mark; SF-36: Short from-36; CLDQ: Chronic liver disease questionnaire; SF-6D: Short form 6-dimensions; HQLQv2: Hepatitis Quality of Life^® survey version 2; HADS: Hospital anxiety and depression scale; HCV: Hepatitis C virus.