National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2013 NICE Process and Methods Guides. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

Shiroiwa, T. (2020). Cost-effectiveness evaluation for pricing medicines and devices: A new value-based price adjustment system in Japan. International journal of technology assessment in health care, 36(3), 270–276.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Center for Outcomes Research and Economic Evaluation for Health. 2022 Guideline for Preparing Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation to the Central Social Insurance Medical Council. Available from https://c2h.niph.go.jp/tools/guideline/guideline_en.pdf. accessed 10 Jan 2023

1990 EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 16(3):199–208

Shiroiwa, T., Fukuda, T., Ikeda, S., et al. (2016). Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D. Quality of life Research, 25(3), 707–719.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical care., 40(2), 113–128.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Noto, S., Shiroiwa, T., Kobayashi, M., Murata, T., Ikeda, S., & Fukuda, T. (2020). Development of a multiplicative, multi-attribute utility function and eight single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in Japan. Journal of patient-reported outcomes., 4(1), 23.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Brazier, J. E., Mulhern, B. J., Bjorner, J. B., et al. (2020). Developing a new version of the SF-6D health state classification system from the SF-36v2: SF-6Dv2. Medical care., 58(6), 557–565.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

King, M. T., Costa, D. S., Aaronson, N. K., et al. (2016). QLU-C10D: A health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of life research, 25(3), 625–636.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Norman, R., Viney, R., Aaronson, N. K., et al. (2016). Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: Feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Quality of life Research, 25(3), 637–649.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Smith, A. B., Cocks, K., Parry, D., & Taylor, M. (2014). Reporting of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) data in oncology trials: A comparison of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). Quality of life Research, 23(3), 971–976.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

McTaggart-Cowan, H., Teckle, P., & Peacock, S. (2013). Mapping utilities from cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments: A review of the literature. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 13(6), 753–765.

Article  Google Scholar 

Xie, F., Pickard, A. S., & Krabbe, P. F. (2015). A checklist for reporting valuation studies of multi-attribute utility-based instruments (CREATE). PharmacoEconomics, 33(8), 867–877.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Finch, A. P., Gamper, E., & Norman, R. (2021). Estimation of an EORTC QLU-C10 value set for spain using a discrete choice experiment. PharmacoEconomics, 39(9), 1085–1098.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Gamper, E. M., King, M. T., Norman, R., et al. (2020). EORTC QLU-C10D value sets for Austria, Italy, and Poland. Quality of life Research, 29(9), 2485–2495.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Jansen, F., Verdonck-de Leeuw, I. M., & Gamper, E. (2021). Dutch utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument: The Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D. Quality of life Research, 30(7), 2009–2019.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Kemmler, G., Gamper, E., & Nerich, V. (2019). German value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of life Research, 28(12), 3197–3211.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

King, M. T., Viney, R., & Simon Pickard, A. (2018). Australian utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. PharmacoEconomics, 36(2), 225–238.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

McTaggart-Cowan, H., King, M. T., Norman, R., et al. (2019). The EORTC QLU-C10D: The Canadian valuation study and algorithm to derive cancer-specific utilities from the EORTC QLQ-C30. MDM policy & practice, 4(1), 2381468319842532.

Article  Google Scholar 

Nerich, V., Gamper, E. M., Norman, R., et al. (2021). French value-set of the QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility measure derived from the QLQ-C30. Applied health economics and health policy., 19(2), 191–202.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Norman, R., Mercieca-Bebber, R., & Rowen, D. (2019). UK utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D. Health Economics, 28(12), 1385–401.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Revicki, D. A., King, M. T., & Viney, R. (2021). United States utility algorithm for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multiattribute utility instrument based on a cancer-specific quality-of-life instrument. Medical Decision Making, 41(4), 485–501.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Finch, A., Gamper, E., Norman, R., et al. (2021). Estimation of an EORTC QLU-C10D value set for Spain using a discrete choice experiment. PharmacoEconomics, 39, 1085–1098.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Gamper, E. M., King, M. T., Norman, R., et al. (2020). EORTC QLU-C10D value sets for Austria, Italy, and Poland. Quality of Life Research, 29(9), 2485–2495.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Jansen, F., Verdonck-de Leeuw, I., Gamper, E., et al. (2021). Dutch utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument: The Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D. Quality of Life Research., 30, 2009–2019.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Kemmler, G., King, M., Norman, R., Viney, R., Gamper, E., & Holzner, B. (2019). German value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research Journal, Quality of Life Research, 28, 3197–3211.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Nerich, V., Gamper, E. M., Norman, R., et al. (2021). French value-set of the QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility measure derived from the QLQ-C30. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 19(2), 191–202.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Revicki, D. A., King, M. T., Viney, R., et al. (2021). United States utility algorithm for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multiattribute utility instrument based on a cancer-specific quality-of-life instrument. Medical Decision Making, 41(4), 485–501.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

ICC/ESOMAR. The International Code on Market, Opinion and Social Research and Data Analytics 2016 [Available from: https://iccwbo.org/publication/iccesomar-international-code-market-opinion-social-research-data-analytics/.

Shiroiwa, T., Noto, S., & Fukuda, T. (2021). Japanese population norms of EQ-5D-5L and health utilities index mark 3: disutility catalog by disease and symptom in community settings. Value Health, 24(8), 1193–1202.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Bansback, N., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Anis, A. (2012). Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate societal health state utility values. Journal of Health Economics, 31, 306–318.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lancsar, E., & Louviere, J. (2008). Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: A user’s guide. PharmacoEconomics, 26(8), 661–677.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Norman, R., Viney, R., & Brazier, J. (2014). Valuing SF-6D health states using a Discrete Choice Experiment. Medical Decision Making., 34(6), 773–786.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Viney, R., Norman, R., & Brazier, J. E. (2014). An Australian discrete choice experiment to value EQ-5D health states. Health Economics, 23(6), 729–742.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Mulhern, B., Norman, R., Street, D. J., & Viney, R. (2019). One Method, Many Methodological Choices: A Structured Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments for Health State Valuation. PharmacoEconomics, 37(1), 29–43.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

de Bekker-Grob, E. W., Donkers, B., Jonker, M. F., & Stolk, E. A. (2015). Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: A practical guide. Patient, 8(5), 373–384.