Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 705

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Preference-Based EQ-5D Index Scores for Chronic Conditions in the United States

Open access
Sullivan, Patrick W., Ghushchyan, Vahram·2006·Medical Decision Making

Abstract

Background. The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine has called for an “off-the-shelf” catalogue of nationally representative, community-based preference scores for health states, illnesses, and conditions. A previous review of cost-effectiveness analyses found that 77% did not incorporate community-based preferences, and 33% used arbitrary expert or author judgment. These results highlight the necessity of making a wide array of appropriate, community-based estimates more accessible to cost-effectiveness researchers. Objective. To provide nationally representative EQ-5D index scores for chronic ICD-9 codes. Methods. The nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) was pooled (2000–2002) to create a data set of 38,678 adults. Ordinary least squares (OLS), Tobit, and censored least absolute deviations (CLAD) regression methods were used to estimate the marginal disutility of each condition, controlling for age, comorbidity, gender, race, ethnicity, income, and education. Results. Most chronic conditions, age, comorbidity, income, and education were highly statistically significant predictors of EQ-5D index scores. Homoskedasticity and normality assumptions were rejected, suggesting only CLAD estimates are theoretically unbiased. The magnitude and statistical significance of coefficients varied by analytic method. OLS and Tobit coefficients were on average 60% and 143% greater than CLAD, respectively. The marginal disutility of 95 chronic ICD-9 codes as well as unadjusted mean, median, and 25th and 75th percentiles are reported.Conclusion. This research provides nationally representative, communitybased EQ-5D index scores associated with a wide variety of chronic ICD-9 codes that can be used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years in cost-effectiveness analyses.

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 · 10.1177/0272989x06290495

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 705

Metadata

Authors
Sullivan, P. W., & Ghushchyan, V.
Venue
Medical Decision Making
Published
2006-07
Volume
26
Issue
4
Pages
410-420
ISSN
  • 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-681X
OpenAlex
W2127448855
Cited by
705
References
3
FWCI
42.21
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: Preference-Based EQ-5D Index Scores for Chronic Conditions in the United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0272989x06290495
The paper
Sullivan, P. W., & Ghushchyan, V. (2006). Preference-Based EQ-5D Index Scores for Chronic Conditions in the United States. Medical Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x06290495

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.