The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Estimating Utility Values for Health States of Type 2 Diabetic Patients Using the EQ-5D (UKPDS 62)
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze quality-of-life data from the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) to estimate the impact of diabetes-related complications on utility-based measures of quality of life. METHODS: The EuroQol EQ-5D instrument was administered in 1996 to 3667 UKPDS patients with type 2 diabetes. Tobit and censored least absolute deviations (CLAD) regression analysis based on data from the 3192 respondents was used to estimate the impact of major complications on (1) the visual analog scale (VAS) and (2) the EQ-5D utilities derived from population-based time trade-off values. RESULTS: Using the tobit model, the effect on tariff values was as follows: myocardial infarction = -0.055 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.067, -0.042), blindness in 1 eye = -0.074 (95% CI= -0.124, -0.052), ischemic heart disease = -0.090 (95% CI = -0.126, -0.054), heartfailure = -0.108 (95% CI= -0.169, -0.048), stroke = -0.164 (95% CI = -0.222, -0.105), and amputation = -0.280 (95% CI = -0.389, -0.170). The impact on the VAS scores was smaller, but the ranking was identical. Estimates of these effects, based on the nonparametric CLAD estimator, are also reported and compared. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate the magnitude of the impact of 6 complications on utility-based measures of quality of life, which can be used to estimate the outcome of interventions that reduce these diabetes-related complications.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Lifetime risk for diabetes mellitus in the United States
Narayan, K. M. V. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.290.14.1884 · Cited by 1,515
Clarke, P. M., Gray, A. M., Briggs, A., Farmer, A. J., Fenn, P., Stevens, R. J., Matthews, D. R., Stratton, I. M., Holman, R. R., & on behalf of the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group (2004) · Diabetologia · doi:10.1007/s00125-004-1527-z · Cited by 615
Self-citationBergenstal, R. M., Wysham, C., MacConell, L., Malloy, J., Walsh, B., Yan, P., Wilhelm, K., Malone, J., & Porter, L. E. (2010) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60590-9 · Cited by 608
A systematic review and economic evaluation of statins for the prevention of coronary events
Ward, S., Lloyd Jones, M., Pandor, A., Holmes, M., Ara, R., Ryan, A., Yeo, W., & Payne, N. (2007) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta11140 · Cited by 556
Polonsky, W. H., Hessler, D., Ruedy, K. J., & Beck, R. W. (2017) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc17-0133 · Cited by 346
Metadata
- Authors
- Clarke, P., Gray, A., & Holman, R.
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-07-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 340-349
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 0000-0000
- OpenAlex
- W4236501586
- Cited by
- 515
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Estimating Utility Values for Health States of Type 2 Diabetic Patients Using the EQ-5D (UKPDS 62). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/027298902400448902
- The paper
- Clarke, P., Gray, A., & Holman, R. (2002). Estimating Utility Values for Health States of Type 2 Diabetic Patients Using the EQ-5D (UKPDS 62). Medical Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/027298902400448902
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.