SynthesisPopulation health metrics2025
Estimated disability weights for the severity of health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Population health metrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe disability weight quantifies the severity of health states from diseases and injuries. It is a fundamental index to estimate the disability-adjusted life year in the Global Burden of Disease studies. Disability weight estimates have been shown to vary across different national populations, suggesting the influence of cultural differences. However, survey data of disability weights in the Global Burden of Disease study is still limited worldwide.
objectivesTo more accurately reflect the true health conditions of global populations, this study aims to systematically summarize the disability weight values from international authoritative surveys, and explore the influential factors of disability weight estimates.
methodsBased on the Global Burden of Disease study, surveys used paired comparison questions wherein respondents considered two hypothetical individuals with different health states and specified which person was healthier. This study comprehensively searched multiple databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. We identified disability weight studies that utilized the paired comparison method and were conducted in national populations, published in international peer-reviewed journals. A meta-regression analysis was conducted to estimate the overall summary effect of disability weight values for 235 unique health states. These health states were estimated for all non-fatal consequences of disease and injury, including infectious diseases, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, chronic respiratory diseases, neurological disorders, mental, behavior, and substance use disorders, hearing and vision loss, musculoskeletal diseases, injuries and others. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I
resultsThe total analysis sample consisted of 610,818 respondents from the Global Burden of Disease 2013 disability weight surveys, the Japanese disability weight survey, and the Chinese disability weight survey. The summarized disability weights of health states ranged from mild anaemia (summarized disability weight = 0.008, 95% uncertainty interval 0.001-0.016, I
conclusionsThe overall summary of disability weights obtained from this meta-analysis is reliable. This study indicates that respondents' sociodemographic characteristics may impact a population's preference for health states, which should be considered in future disability weight assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.