Background. There has been a growing interest around the world in developing country-specific scoring algorithms for the EQ-5D. This study systematically reviews all existing EQ-5D valuation studies to highlight their strengths and limitations, explores heterogeneity in observed utilities using meta-regression, and proposes a methodological checklist for reporting EQ-5D valuation studies. Methods. We searched Medline, EMBASE, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) via Wiley’s Cochrane Library, and Wiley’s Health Economic Evaluation Database from inception through November 2012, as well as bibliographies of key papers and the EuroQol Plenary Meeting Proceedings from 1991 to 2012 for English-language reports of EQ-5D valuation studies. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts for relevance. Three reviewers performed data extraction and compared the characteristics and scoring algorithms developed in the included valuation studies. Results. Of the 31 studies included in the review, 19 used the time trade-off (TTO) technique, 10 used the visual analogue scale (VAS) technique, and 2 used both TTO and VAS. Most studies included respondents from the general population selected by random or quota sampling and used face-to-face interviews or postal surveys. Studies valued between 7 and 198 total states, with 1–23 states valued per respondent. Different model specifications have been proposed for scoring. Some sample or demographic factors, including gender, education, percentage urban population, and national health care expenditure, were associated with differences in observed utilities for moderate or severe health states. Conclusions. EQ-5D valuation studies conducted to date have varied widely in their design and in the resulting scoring algorithms. Therefore, we propose the Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies of the EQ-5D (CREATE) for those conducting valuation studies.

The objective of this trial was to test two promising front-of-pack nutrition labels, 1) the United Kingdom’s Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL) label and 2) France’s Nutri-Score (NS), relative to a no-label control. We hypothesized that both labels would improve diet quality but NS would be more effective due to its greater simplicity. We tested this hypothesis via an online grocery store using a 3 × 3 crossover (within-person) design with 154 participants. Outcomes assessed via within person regression models include a modified Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI)-2010 (primary), average Nutri-Score, calories purchased, and singular measures of diet quality of purchase orders. Results show that both labels significantly improve modified AHEI scores relative to Control but neither is statistically superior using this measure. NS performed statistically better than MTL and Control based on average Nutri-Score, yet, unlike MTL it did not statistically reduce calories or sugar from beverages. This suggest that NS may be preferred if the goal is to improve overall diet quality but, because calories are clearly displayed on the label, MTL may perform better if the goal is to reduce total energy intake.

This review aims to evaluate the current literature on the procedural costs of bariatric surgery for the treatment of severe obesity. Using a published framework for the conduct of micro-costing studies for surgical interventions, existing cost estimates from the literature are assessed for their accuracy, reliability and comprehensiveness based on their consideration of seven ‘important’ cost components. MEDLINE, PubMed, key journals and reference lists of included studies were searched up to January 2017. Eligible studies had to report per-case, total procedural costs for any type of bariatric surgery broken down into two or more individual cost components. A total of 998 citations were screened, of which 13 studies were included for analysis. Included studies were mainly conducted from a US hospital perspective, assessed either gastric bypass or adjustable gastric banding procedures and considered a range of different cost components. The mean total procedural costs for all included studies was US$14,389 (range, US$7423 to US$33,541). No study considered all of the recommended ‘important’ cost components and estimation methods were poorly reported. The accuracy, reliability and comprehensiveness of the existing cost estimates are, therefore, questionable. There is a need for a comparative cost analysis of the different approaches to bariatric surgery, with the most appropriate costing approach identified to be micro-costing methods. Such an analysis will not only be useful in estimating the relative cost-effectiveness of different surgeries but will also ensure appropriate reimbursement and budgeting by healthcare payers to ensure barriers to access this effective treatment by severely obese patients are minimised.