Table 5 Comparison of algorithms in N-H population
Time point | N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std. Deviation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline | Observed EQ-5D | 117 | -,36 | 1,00 | ,60 | ,37 |
| Â | Predicted McKenzie & Van der Pol | 106 | -,14 | 1,06 | ,61 | ,27 |
| Â | Predicted Combined | 108 | -,34 | ,97 | ,60 | ,32 |
T = 1 | Observed EQ-5D | 124 | -,43 | 1,00 | ,64 | ,33 |
| Â | Predicted McKenzie & Van der Pol | 115 | -,01 | 1,03 | ,66 | ,24 |
| Â | Predicted Combined | 120 | -,07 | ,97 | ,63 | ,25 |
T = 2 | Observed EQ-5D | 116 | -,33 | 1,00 | ,67 | ,30 |
| Â | Predicted McKenzie & Van der Pol | 111 | ,16 | 1,03 | ,66 | ,21 |
| Â | Predicted Combined | 111 | -,03 | ,97 | ,66 | ,25 |
T = 3 | Observed EQ-5D | 103 | -,24 | 1,00 | ,65 | ,31 |
| Â | Predicted McKenzie & Van der Pol | 96 | -,01 | 1,03 | ,62 | ,23 |
| Â | Predicted Combined | 99 | -,17 | ,97 | ,63 | ,25 |
T = 4 | Observed EQ-5D | 101 | -,43 | 1,00 | ,72 | ,32 |
| Â | Predicted McKenzie & Van der Pol | 94 | ,03 | 1,05 | ,73 | ,23 |
| Â | Predicted Combined | 95 | -,17 | ,98 | ,71 | ,24 |
T = 5 | Observed EQ-5D | 87 | -,18 | 1,00 | ,75 | ,24 |
| Â | Predicted McKenzie & Van der Pol | 82 | -,11 | 1,05 | ,75 | ,23 |
| Â | Predicted Combined | 84 | -,13 | ,98 | ,74 | ,21 |
T = 6 | Observed EQ-5D | 76 | -,59 | 1,00 | ,73 | ,32 |
| Â | Predicted McKenzie & Van der Pol | 68 | ,05 | 1,06 | ,77 | ,23 |
| Â | Predicted Combined | 71 | -,13 | ,97 | ,76 | ,22 |
T = 7 | Observed EQ-5D | 59 | ,06 | 1,00 | ,77 | ,21 |
| Â | Predicted McKenzie & Van der Pol | 59 | ,00 | 1,04 | ,78 | ,22 |
| Â | Predicted Combined | 59 | -,13 | ,98 | ,78 | ,20 |