Mapping studies to estimate health-state utilities from non-preference-based outcome measures: a systematic review on how repeated measurements are taken into account

OBJECTIVES: Mapping algorithms are developed using data sets containing patient responses to a preference-based questionnaire and another health-related quality-of-life questionnaire. When data sets include repeated measurements from the same individuals over time, the assumption of observations' independence, required by standard models, is violated, and standard errors are underestimated. This review aimed to identify how studies deal with methodological challenges of repeated measurements, provide an overview of practice to date, and potential implications for future work. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, specialized databases, and previous systematic reviews. A data template was used to extract, among others, start and target instruments if the data set(s) used for estimation and validation had repeated measurements per patient, used regression techniques, and which (if any) adjustments were made for repeated measurements. RESULTS: We identified 278 publications developing at least 1 mapping algorithm. Of the 278 publications, 121 used a data set with repeated measurements, among which 92 used multiple time points for estimation, and 39 selected specific time points to have 1 observation per participant. A total of 36 studies did not account for repeated measurements. An adjustment was conducted using cluster-robust standard errors (21), random-effects models (30), generalized estimating equations (7), and other methods (7). CONCLUSIONS: The inconsistent use of methods to account for interdependent observations in the literature indicates that mapping guidelines should include recommendations on how to deal with repeated measurements, and journals should update their guidelines accordingly.