Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 379

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why Patients Visit Their Doctors: Assessing the Most Prevalent Conditions in a Defined American Population

Open access
St. Sauver, Jennifer L., Warner, David O., Yawn, Barbara P., Jacobson, Debra J., McGree, Michaela E., Pankratz, Joshua J., Melton, L. Joseph, Roger, Véronique L., Ebbert, Jon O., Rocca, Walter A.·2013·Mayo Clinic Proceedings

Abstract

Objective To describe the prevalence of non-acute conditions among patients seeking healthcare in a defined US population, emphasizing age, sex, and ethnic differences. Methods The Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) records-linkage system was used to identify all residents of Olmsted County, MN on April 1, 2009 (n=142,377). We then electronically extracted all International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision (ICD-9) codes received by these subjects from any health care provider between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2009. We grouped ICD-9 codes into Clinical Classification Codes (CCCs), and then into 47 broader disease groups associated with health-related quality of life. Age- and sex-specific prevalence was estimated by dividing the number of individuals within each group by the corresponding age- and sex-specific population. People with multiple codes within a group were counted only once. Results We included a total of 142,377 subjects (53% women). Skin disorders (42.7%), osteoarthritis and joint disorders (33.6%), back problems (23.9%), disorders of lipid metabolism (22.4%), and upper respiratory disease (22.1%; excluding asthma) were the most prevalent disease groups in this population. Eight of the 10 most prevalent disease groups were more common in women; however, disorders of lipid metabolism and hypertension were more common in men. Additionally, the prevalence of seven of these 10 groups increased with advancing age. Prevalence varied also across whites, blacks, and Asians. Conclusion Our findings suggest areas for focused research that may lead to better care delivery and improved population health.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.08.020

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 40 references

Cited by

See all 379

Metadata

Authors
St. Sauver, J. L., Warner, D. O., Yawn, B. P., Jacobson, D. J., McGree, M. E., Pankratz, J. J., Melton, L. J., Roger, V. L., Ebbert, J. O., & Rocca, W. A.
Venue
Mayo Clinic Proceedings
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-01
Volume
88
Issue
1
Pages
56-67
ISSN
0025-6196 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2052207024
Cited by
379
References
40
FWCI
8.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Why Patients Visit Their Doctors: Assessing the Most Prevalent Conditions in a Defined American Population. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.08.020
The paper
St. Sauver, J. L., Warner, D. O., Yawn, B. P., Jacobson, D. J., McGree, M. E., Pankratz, J. J., Melton, L. J., Roger, V. L., Ebbert, J. O., & Rocca, W. A. (2013). Why Patients Visit Their Doctors: Assessing the Most Prevalent Conditions in a Defined American Population. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.08.020

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.