Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27606626›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Estimation of Disability Weights in the General Population of South Korea Using a Paired Comparison.

Minsu Ock, Jeonghoon Ahn, Seok-Jun Yoon, Min-Woo Jo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Updating Korean Disability Weights for Causes of Disease: Adopting an Add-on Study Method.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. DALY Estimation Approaches: Understanding and Using the Incidence-based Approach and the Prevalence-based Approach.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2022
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Health gap for multimorbidity: comparison of models combining uniconditional health gap.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Minsu OckDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of Ulsan, Seoul, South Korea.
Jeonghoon AhnDepartment of Health Convergence, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea.
Seok-Jun YoonDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea.
Min-Woo JoDepartment of Preventive Medicine, University of Ulsan, Seoul, South Korea.
University of Ulsan · KREwha Womans University · KRKorea University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We estimated the disability weights in the South Korean population by using a paired comparison-only model wherein 'full health' and 'being dead' were included as anchor points, without resorting to a cardinal method, such as person trade-off. The study was conducted via 2 types of survey: a household survey involving computer-assisted face-to-face interviews and a web-based survey (similar to that of the GBD 2010 disability weight study). With regard to the valuation methods, paired comparison, visual analogue scale (VAS), and standard gamble (SG) were used in the household survey, whereas paired comparison and population health equivalence (PHE) were used in the web-based survey. Accordingly, we described a total of 258 health states, with 'full health' and 'being dead' designated as anchor points. In the analysis, 4 models were considered: a paired comparison-only model; hybrid model between paired comparison and PHE; VAS model; and SG model. A total of 2,728 and 3,188 individuals participated in the household and web-based survey, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficients of the disability weights of health states between the GBD 2010 study and the current models were 0.802 for Model 2, 0.796 for Model 1, 0.681 for Model 3, and 0.574 for Model 4 (all P-values<0.001). The discrimination of values according to health state severity was most suitable in Model 1. Based on these results, the paired comparison-only model was selected as the best model for estimating disability weights in South Korea, and for maintaining simplicity in the analysis. Thus, disability weights can be more easily estimated by using paired comparison alone, with 'full health' and 'being dead' as one of the health states. As noted in our study, we believe that additional evidence regarding the universality of disability weight can be observed by using a simplified methodology of estimating disability weights.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationMatched-Pair AnalysisAdultConfidence IntervalsDemographyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalRepublic of KoreaYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27606626
PMCPMC5015913
OpenAlexW2518065896

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.