Cited by 83Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsEconomic and Environmental Valuation

Health utility values associated with diabetic retinopathy

Lloyd, A., Nafees, B., Gavriel, S., Rousculp, M. D., Boye, K. S., Ahmad, A.·2008·Diabetic Medicine

Abstract

AIMS: Different estimates exist regarding the impact of diabetic retinopathy (DR) on health utility. A previously reported prospective observational study has reported much larger decrements in self-reported utility than generic utility data from the UK Prospective Diabetes Study and the Lipids in Diabetes Study. The present study was designed to estimate utility loss using multiple methods. METHODS: Detailed health state descriptions reflecting declining DR (five different visual acuity levels), neuropathy and nephropathy were validated with patients and used to elicit utility values from people with DR, people with diabetes and members of the UK general public using standard gamble. In addition, a larger sample of people with retinopathy completed different health-related quality of life measures in an interview [EuroQoL (EQ-5D), Health State Utilities Index (HUI)-3, and National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25]. RESULTS: The utility scores from the standard gamble interviews were not significantly different between the three groups. There was a decline in utility from 6/6 vision to counting fingers of -0.244. The utility data derived from the generic measures revealed an equivalent decline of -0.41 on both the EQ-5D single index and the HUI-3. CONCLUSIONS: This study has re-examined the utility decrements associated with DR and has identified much larger declines in utility than previously reported. The study has also reported the utility values of patients with retinopathy as assessed by standard gamble. We believe that this may be the first study to report utility values for health states associated with vision loss which have been elicited from patients with vision loss.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2008.02430.x

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lloyd, A., Nafees, B., Gavriel, S., Rousculp, M. D., Boye, K. S., & Ahmad, A.
Affiliations
  • Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
  • Royal Liverpool University Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Lloyd, A.
Venue
Diabetic Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-05
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
618-624
ISSN
  • 0742-3071 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5491
OpenAlex
W1799887557
Cited by
83
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 10
FWCI
10.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
Keywords
diabetic retinopathy, health utility, health-related quality of life, visual acuity, vision loss, standard gamble, EQ-5D, NEI VFQ-25, diabetic neuropathy, diabetic nephropathy
MeSH terms
Attitude to Health, Diabetic Retinopathy, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Visual Acuity, Sickness Impact Profile

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review