Metrics of Disease Importance in Medical Journals
Author Information
Author(s): Gouda Hebe N, Powles John W
Primary Institution: Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge
Hypothesis
The introduction of the DALY and growing literature on population health metrics has influenced the choice of metrics used to express the relative social importance of diseases.
Conclusion
Claims about the relative importance of diseases are still mostly expressed in terms of counts and comparisons, with little use of time-based metrics.
Supporting Evidence
- 143 papers in 1993 and 264 papers in 2003 included claims about disease importance.
- Most claims used counts, prevalence, or incidence measurements.
- Very few articles used time-based metrics like years of life lost or quality-adjusted life years.
Takeaway
Researchers often talk about how important diseases are using numbers, but they don't always use the best ways to show how much these diseases affect people's lives.
Methodology
Textual examination of introductory statements from papers published in three leading medical journals in 1993 and 2003.
Potential Biases
Limited attention to the choice of metrics may reflect broader neglect in expressing disease burden.
Limitations
The analysis was restricted to three leading general medical journals, which may not represent the use of time-based measures in specialized journals.
Statistical Information
P-Value
0.99
Statistical Significance
p=0.99
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website