Methodological considerations in injury burden of disease studies across Europe: a systematic literature review

Charalampousetal. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:1564 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13925-z RESEARCH Methodological considerations ininjury burden ofdisease studies acrossEurope: asystematic literature review Periklis Charalampous1*, Elena Pallari2, Vanessa Gorasso3,4, Elena von der Lippe5, Brecht Devleesschauwer4,6, Sara M. Pires7, Dietrich Plass8, Jane Idavain9, Che Henry Ngwa10,11, Isabel Noguer12, Alicia Padron‑Monedero12, Rodrigo Sarmiento12,13, Marek Majdan14, Balázs Ádám15,16, Ala’a AlKerwi17, Seila Cilovic‑Lagarija18, Benjamin Clarsen19,20,21, Barbara Corso22, Sarah Cuschieri23, Keren Dopelt24,25, Mary Economou26, Florian Fischer27, Alberto Freitas28,29, Juan Manuel García‑González30, Federica Gazzelloni31, Artemis Gkitakou32, Hakan Gulmez33, Paul Hynds34, Gaetano Isola35, Lea S. Jakobsen7, Zubair Kabir36, Katarzyna Kissimova‑Skarbek37, Ann Kristin Knudsen20, Naime Meriç Konar38, Carina Ladeira39,40, Brian Lassen7, Aaron Liew41, Marjeta Majer42, Enkeleint A. Mechili43,44, Alibek Mereke45, Lorenzo Monasta46, Stefania Mondello47, Joana Nazaré Morgado48, Evangelia Nena49, Edmond S. W. Ng50, Vikram Niranjan51, Iskra Alexandra Nola42, Rónán O’Caoimh52, Panagiotis Petrou53, Vera Pinheiro28, Miguel Reina Ortiz54, Silvia Riva55, Hanen Samouda56, João Vasco Santos28,29,57, Cornelia Melinda Adi Santoso58, Milena Santric Milicevic59, Dimitrios Skempes60, Ana Catarina Sousa61,62, Niko Speybroeck63, Fimka Tozija64,65, Brigid Unim66, Hilal Bektaş Uysal67, Fabrizio Giovanni Vaccaro68, Orsolya Varga16, Milena Vasic69,70, Francesco Saverio Violante71,72, Grant M. A. Wyper73, Suzanne Polinder1 and Juanita A. Haagsma1 Abstract Background: Calculating the disease burden due to injury is complex, as it requires many methodological choices. Until now, an overview of the methodological design choices that have been made in burden of disease (BoD) stud‑ ies in injury populations is not available. The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify existing injury BoD studies undertaken across Europe and to comprehensively review the methodological design choices and assump‑ tion parameters that have been made to calculate years of life lost (YLL) and years lived with disability (YLD) in these studies. Methods: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, and the grey literature supplemented by handsearching, for BoD studies. We included injury BoD studies that quantified the BoD expressed in YLL, YLD, and disability‑adjusted life years (DALY) in countries within the European Region between early‑ 1990 and mid‑2021. © The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ publi cdoma in/ zero/1. 0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Open Access *Correspondence: p[email protected] 1 Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands Full list of author information is available at the end of the article Page 2 of 15 Charalampousetal. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:1564 Background Across the global burden of disease (BoD) landscape, injuries are a major public health problem. There have been significant declines in case fatality rates from severe injury over recent decades, indicating that access to trauma care systems have led to improvements in survival [1, 2]. However, survivors of severe injury often develop long-term disabilities, resulting in significant losses of healthy life years, long after the acute injury. Most injury-related epidemiological studies have focused on using incidence, case fatality rates, or population mortality rates to describe the public health impact of injuries [3–5]. Considering that non-fatal consequences of injury vary widely in their severity and duration, and that premature mortality is an important injury consequence, it is of great importance to use a summary measure of population health that includes both mortality and morbidity when assessing the impact of injury. A widely used population health indicator combining the impact of mortality and morbidity is the disabilityadjusted life year (DALY) [6, 7]. The DALY – used in the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study – quantifies the BoD by merging mortality, expressed in years of life lost (YLL) and morbidity, expressed in years lived with disability (YLD) into one single metric [7]. Historically, the BoD concept allows for both geographical and temporal comparisons of the impact of different diseases and injuries on population health [7, 8]. Many countries and public health agencies have adopted the DALY metric for monitoring population health and identifying priorities in preventive efforts; however, calculating the burden due to injuries is complex. It requires adequate epidemiological data from a range of administrative sources that include information on the cause-of-injury, which pertains to the intent and mechanism of injury, and the nature-of-injury, which pertains to the type of injury and the severity of their consequences [9]. Furthermore, calculating the burden due to injury requires many specific methodological choices, particularly for the non-fatal consequences [10, 11]. First, a choice has to be made as to whether incidence-based or prevalence-based injury YLDs are to be calculated [12]. Incidence-based YLD calculations capture the current and future BoD of incident cases and may be more useful to inform injury intervention strategies compared to prevalence-based calculations. Second, to assess injury YLDs, a methodological approach and data are required to inform shortterm and long-term disability based on post-injury functional status. A third methodological choice relates to the set of disability weights (DWs) that is applied to injury-related health states. Several sets of DWs exist with ranging coverage of injury-related health states [13, 14]. Another methodological choice relates to the calculation of the YLLs. For the calculation of YLLs, information on the remaining life expectancy at age of death is needed and this is derived from aspirational or standard (i.e., observed global life expectancy) or national (i.e., national life expectancy) life tables. In BoD studies, the choice of the life table affects the magnitude of the YLL and as a result affects country and time-period comparability [15]. Driven by the disparity in the mortality and morbidity injury patterns across Europe, where many independent BoD studies have been published, there is a need to explore which injury BoD design choices have been applied over the years. Until now, an overview of the YLL and YLD design choices that have been used in BoD studies in injury populations is not available. Therefore, we aimed to identify existing injury BoD activities undertaken in Europe and to comprehensively review the methodological design choices and assumption parameters that have been used to calculate YLL and YLD in these studies. The following research questions were addressed: Results: We retrieved 2,914 results of which 48 performed an injury‑specific BoD assessment. Single‑country inde‑ pendent and Global Burden of Disease (GBD)‑linked injury BoD studies were performed in 11 European countries. Approximately 79% of injury BoD studies reported the BoD by external cause‑of‑injury. Most independent studies used the incidence‑based approach to calculate YLDs. About half of the injury disease burden studies applied dis‑ ability weights (DWs) developed by the GBD study. Almost all independent injury studies have determined YLL using national life tables. Conclusions: Considerable methodological variation across independent injury BoD assessments was observed; differences were mainly apparent in the design choices and assumption parameters towards injury YLD calculations, implementation of DWs, and the choice of life table for YLL calculations. Development and use of guidelines for performing and reporting of injury BoD studies is crucial to enhance transparency and comparability of injury BoD estimates across Europe and beyond. Keywords: Burden of disease, Burden of Injury, Disability‑adjusted life years, Review, Methodology Page 3 of 15 Charalampousetal. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:1564 • In which GBD European Region countries has injury BoD assessment been performed? • Which YLD methodological design choices and assumption parameters have been made in singlecountry and multi-country injury BoD assessments? • Which YLL methodological design choices and assumption parameters have been made in singlecountry and multi-country injury BoD assessments? Methods The design of this systematic literature review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement [16]. The protocol can be found on PROSPERO under the registration number: CRD42020177477. Inclusion andexclusion criteria andinjury definitions In this literature review, we included studies that assessed the health outcomes from injury in terms of YLL, YLD, or DALY. Our review is limited to injury-specific BoD studies; we have excluded studies that reported on allcause disease burden. All-cause BoD studies assess the impact of multiple causes covered by the three broad GBD cause hierarchy groups namely Group I “Communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional diseases”, Group II “Non-communicable diseases”, and Group III “Injuries”. Injury-specific BoD studies assess the impact of the GBD cause-of-injury and/or nature-of-injury outcomes and did not assess YLL, YLD, or DALY resulting from Group I and/or Group II. Details of the GBD 2019 disease and injury hierarchical cause list can be found elsewhere [17]. We included only BoD studies conducted within the GBD European Region. A full list of these geographic locations can be found in the Additional file1 (page 2). Since the DALY concept was introduced in the 1993 World Development Report [18], we screened only BoD studies published after January 1990. We excluded disease burden studies that did not assess the impact of injury causes. We also excluded studies that quantified the magnitude of risk factor exposure, because methodological approaches for the risk factor assessment were beyond the scope of this review. Further, we excluded studies with outcomes other than YLL, YLD and/or DALY (e.g. computation of potential years of life lost, estimation of DWs), as well as citation-only books, theses, conference proceedings, editorials, and letters-to-editor. We considered BoD studies that defined injury as a physical harm resulting from acute exposure to physical agents such as mechanical energy, electricity, heat, chemicals and radiation in amounts beyond the threshold of human tolerance [19]. We used the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) system to identify causes-of-injury, where the injury incidence and causesof-death are defined in ICD-9 codes E000-E999 and ICD10 chapters V–Y. Non-fatal consequences of injuries and poisonings are classified based on ICD-9 codes 800–999 and ICD-10 chapters S and T. Thus, we included studies assessing the injury burden in terms of nature-of-injury and cause-of-injury. We did not include psychological (e.g. post-traumatic stress disorder) or pathological consequences (e.g. osteoporotic fractures) resulting from a prior trauma. An overview of the GBD cause-nature categories can be found in the Additional file1 (page 3). Data sources andsearch strategy We searched for eligible BoD records on five main platforms: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. An experienced librarian from the Erasmus MC Medical Library performed the search strategy on 2 April 2020, updating it on 6 May 2021. We did not set any language restrictions. Details of the systematic search strategy can be found in the Additional file1 (page 5). We examined the grey literature on: (a) OpenGrey, OAIster, CABDirect, and the World Health Organization (WHO) websites and (b) government and/or public health websites from the targeted European countries (see Additional file1; page 8). We also asked the COST Action CA18218 members to identify further all-cause or injury-specific BoD sources. One researcher (PC) handsearched references of those eligible and included BoD records by looking into the references of published studies and reports. Screening anddata extraction We listed all the records obtained from the search strategy (phase 1) and the COST Action CA18218 participants (phase 2) on an EndNote X9 and Excel spreadsheet, respectively. After removing duplicates, we imported all the records on the EndNote X9 software. Two researchers (PC and VG) performed the screening. In essence, we selected eligible studies following three steps: title (first step) and abstract screening (second step), followed by our identifying potentially relevant studies and screening upon full-text (third step). Discussions with EP and the study supervisor (JH) resolved any doubts. Two researchers (PC and EP) performed the extraction of data, independently of each other, using an Excel spreadsheet which included the following a priori information: first author, year of publication, country or region, study type, type of analysis, methodological choices regarding the YLL and YLD calculations, and injury-specific approaches for BoD calculations. The extracted items, followed by their definitions, can be Page 4 of 15 Charalampousetal. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:1564 found in the Additional file1 (page 9). We piloted the data extraction grid for 5% of the included BoD studies with no masking, during this process. Data extraction for the non-English papers was performed by the burden-eu native speakers and discussed with PC. Finally, PC and EP compared, assessed, and discussed the data extraction forms. Discussions with the study supervisor (JH) resolved any disagreements. Study classifications In this review, we classified studies according to the: (a) number of countries that were covered (singlecountry versus multi-country BoD study), (b) reported causes of ill-health (all-cause versus injury-specific BoD study) and (c) type of study (independent versus GBD-linked injury BoD study). The term ‘independent injury BoD study’ refers to single-country or multicountry studies for which researchers performed own calculations and analyses of YLL, YLD and/or DALY caused by injuries. The term ‘GBD-linked injury BoD study’ refers to single-country or multi-country studies that present GBD estimates or secondary analyses of GBD results. In this group, we also classified studies in which the injury YLL, YLD, and/or DALY estimates were derived from the WHO Global Health Estimates (GHE) [20], though the GHE and GBD are two separate repositories. The following review focuses on the summary of single-country and multi-country independent and GBD-linked injury-specific BoD studies that have been performed across European countries over the 1990– 2021 period. Descriptive analysis and the reference lists of the identified all-cause-related European BoD studies can be found in the Additional file1 (page 12). Results Literature search We retrieved a total of 2,771 articles from the developed search strategy (EMBASE = 1,791; Web of Science = 560; MEDLINE via Ovid engine = 261; Google Scholar = 128; and Cochrane library via Wiley engine = 31). We identified 327 additional records via other methods (i.e., grey literature and citation handsearching). After removing duplicates, we screened a total of 2,914 records. We performed full-text screening for 292 BoD studies, and we extracted data from 125 BoD studies. Out of these 125 BoD studies, 48 performed an injury-specific disease burden assessment. Figure1 shows the flowchart of the literature search strategy of existing disease burden studies and main reasons for exclusion. Study types perstudy classification andgeographic location As described in Table1 and Fig.2, 40% (19 out of 48) consisted of GBD-linked studies, whereas 60% (29 out of 48) consisted of independent studies. Of the GBD-linked studies, 89% (17 out of 19) were multi-country studies and 11% (2 out of 19) were single-country studies. Of the independent studies, 28% (8 out of 29) were multi-country studies and 72% (21 out of 29) were single-country studies. Single-country injury disease burden assessments (n = 23) were performed in 11 European countries. The largest number of single-country independent studies was observed in the Netherlands (n = 11), followed by Scotland (n = 2), Belgium (n = 2), Germany (n = 1), Sweden (n = 1), Italy (n = 1), Norway (n = 1), France (n = 1), and Russia (n = 1). Two single-country studies undertaken in Poland (n = 1) and England (n = 1) assessed the burden of injuries using GBD results. Cause‑of‑injury versus nature‑of‑injury burden ofdisease studies Figure 3 illustrates the number of GBD-linked and independent injury BoD studies (n = 48) by causenature of injury. In total, 38 out of 48 studies reported the BoD by cause-of-injury category, and the remaining 10 studies reported the BoD by nature-of-injury category. The majority of the cause-of-injury BoD studies were GBD-linked studies (24 out of 38). Nine out of these 24 studies evaluated the impact of road injuries. In contrast, among the independent studies that reported cause-of-injury (14 out of 38), the number of multi-cause (7 out of 14) and suicide and/or self-harm (3 out of 14) studies stand out. Moreover, the number of independent studies that reported nature-of-injury (7 out of 10) was higher compared to the number of GBD-linked studies (3 out of 10). The largest number of independent nature-of-injury BoD studies assessed the impact of hip fractures (2 out of 7), and traumatic brain injury and/or spinal cord injury (2 out of 7). Classification ofinjury diagnosis Single-country and multi-country GBD-linked studies (17 out of 19) re-ordered injury causes-of-death using the ICD-9 or ICD-10 coding system. Two of these studies (2 out of 19) did not report the injury classification scheme. Similarly, most single-country and multi-country independent BoD studies (82%) gathered injury diagnosis from the ICD code-system. Some of these studies (38%) translated injury diagnosis according to the EUROCOST classification system [21]. Three single-country and multi-country independent injury studies (11%) did not report the diagnosis classification system. Page 5 of 15 Charalampousetal. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:1564 YLD methodological choices ininjury burden ofdisease studies Prevalence‑based versusIncidence‑based calculations Table 2 summarizes the methodological design choices and assumption parameters that have been used in injury BoD studies. Most single-country independent studies have followed the incidence-based approach to calculate YLDs due to injury [22–38]. Two independent injury BoD reports conducted in Scotland have performed own prevalence-based YLD calculations [39, 40]. Conversely, two single-country studies have evaluated the impact of injury using GBD results; a United Kingdom comparative report presented prevalence-based YLD calculations [41], and a Polish study quantified injury DALYs using a combination of Polish data on traffic fatalities and GBD 2010 data to assess the burden due to traffic injuries in Warsaw [42]. Seven multi-country independent studies quantified the burden of injury using the incidence-based approach [43–49]. Also, 11 multi-country GBD-linked studies estimated injury YLDs using the prevalence-based approach [1, 50–59]; of which 10 used GBD data as primary source of data and one of these studies used the 2015 WHO GHE as a primary source of data. Moreover, four out of the 11 multi-country GBD-linked studies followed an incidencebased approach to assess injury YLD. [60–63]. These four injury BoD studies were conducted before 2010. Use ofdisability weights Several sets of DWs were used to assess injury BoD estimates in independent studies. More than half (56%) of these studies, applied empirical DWs [25, 27, 29–34, 36–38, 43, 45, 48, 49]. All independent studies that used empirical DWs have performed incidence-based YLD Fig. 1 Flowchart of the literature search strategy of existing European burden of disease studies * This systematic literature review is limited to injury‑specific BoD assessments undertaken across Europe; January 1990 ‑ May 2021 Table 1 Number of GBD‑linked and independent single‑country and multi‑country studies Injury‑specific BoD studies (n = 48) GBD‑linked BoD assessments Independent BoD assessments Single‑country n = 2 (11%) n = 21 (72%) Multi‑country n = 17 (89%) n = 8 (28%) Page 6 of 15 Charalampousetal. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:1564 calculations. Seven single-country independent injury BoD studies used GBD DWs [26, 28, 35, 39, 40, 44, 47], three used a combination of DWs [22, 23, 46], and one study applied Australian DWs [24]. YLL methodological choices ininjury burden ofdisease studies Choice oflife table Most single-country independent studies have used national life tables [23, 24, 27, 33, 38–40] or national life expectancies [22, 28, 36, 66] to calculate YLLs. The remaining single-country independent BoD studies used aspirational model life tables that have a standard life expectancy at birth, such as those used in the GBD study [26, 30, 31, 33, 35, 64]. Multi-country independent studies frequently used aspirational global [43, 45–47] or European [67] life tables. The remaining single-country and multi-country GBDlinked BoD studies used the standard model life tables from GBD/WHO [1, 41, 50, 51, 53–63, 65, 68]. Discussion This systematic literature review has provided insights into the methodological design choices and assumption parameters that have been used to quantify the burden of injury in terms of YLL, YLD, or DALY. A total of 48 BoD studies met our inclusion criteria; more than half Fig. 2 Number of GBD‑linked and independent injury burden of disease studies per multi‑country and single‑country category Fig. 3 Number of GBD‑linked and independent injury burden of disease studies (n = 48) by cause‑nature of injury Page 7 of 15 Charalampousetal. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:1564 Table 2 Methodological design choices and assumption parameters in injury burden of disease studies Author Year Single‑ or multi‑country category? Geographic Location Type of study Injury classification Classification of injury diagnosis Design choices of YLL calculations Design choices of YLD calculations Independent study GBD‑ linked study Cause‑ of‑injury category Nature‑ of‑injury category Incidence‑ or prevalence‑ based approach? Usage of disability weights Aldridge et al. [50]2017 Multi‑country WHO European Region • • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 WHO standard model life tables Prevalence GBD DWs Begg & Tomijima [60]2006 Multi‑country Global • • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 GBD standard model life tables Incidence GBD DWs Crowe et al. [52] 2020 Multi‑country Global • • • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 NA Prevalence GBD DWs Dhondt et al. [23] 2012 Single‑country Belgium (Flan‑ ders; Brussels) • • • ICD‑9 (aggregated to the EUROCOST classification) Belgian life table Incidence Empirical DWs; GBD DWs Dhondt et al. [22] 2013 Single‑country Belgium (Flan‑ ders; Brussels) • • • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 (aggregated to the EUROCOST classification) Belgian LE Incidence Dutch DWs; GBD DWs Fattahov & Piankova [64]2018 Single‑country Russia • • ICD‑10 GBD standard model life tables NA NA Franklin et al. [65] 2020 Multi‑country Global • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 GBD standard model life tables NA NA Gobbino et al. (on behalf of CRMSS) [24] 2012 Single‑country Italy (Friuli Ven‑ ezia Giulia) • • • ICD‑9 Italian life table Incidence Australian DWs Haagsma et al. [25]2008 Single‑country Netherlands • • ICD‑9 (aggregated to the EUROCOST classification) NA Incidence Empirical DWs Haagsma et al. [43]2012 Multi‑country Netherlands; Ceres; Thailand • • ICD‑10 (aggre‑ gated to the EUROCOST clas‑ sification) Standard West 26 Incidence Empirical DWs Haagsma et al. [1] 2016 Multi‑country Global • • • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 GBD standard model life tables Prevalence GBD DWs Haagsma et al. [54]2020 Multi‑country GBD Western Europe • • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 GBD standard model life tables Prevalence GBD DWs Haagsma et al. [53]2020 Multi‑country Global • • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 GBD standard model life tables Prevalence GBD DWs Hagen et al. [26] 2020 Single‑country Norway • • NR GBD standard model life tables Incidence GBD DWs Hoeymans & Sch‑ oemaker [38]2010 Single‑country Netherlands • • • ICD‑10 Dutch life table Incidence Empirical DWs Page 8 of 15 Charalampousetal. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:1564 Table 2 (continued) Author Year Single‑ or multi‑country category? Geographic Location Type of study Injury classification Classification of injury diagnosis Design choices of YLL calculations Design choices of YLD calculations Independent study GBD‑ linked study Cause‑ of‑injury category Nature‑ of‑injury category Incidence‑ or prevalence‑ based approach? Usage of disability weights Holtslag et al. [27] 2008 Single‑country Netherlands • • NR Dutch life table Incidence Empirical DWs James et al. [55] 2019 Multi‑country Global • • • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 GBD standard model life tables Prevalence GBD DWs James et al. [11] 2019 Multi‑country Global • • • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 NA Prevalence GBD DWs James et al. [56] 2020 Multi‑country Global • • • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 NA Prevalence GBD DWs Johnell & Kanis [44]2004 Multi‑country World Bank Regions • • NR NR Incidence GBD DWs Khan et al. [57] 2020 Multi‑country Global • • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 GBD standard model life tables Prevalence GBD DWs Lalloo et al. [58] 2020 Multi‑country Global • • • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 GBD standard model life tables Prevalence GBD DWs Lapostolle et al. [28]2009 Single‑country France • • • ICD‑10 (AIS codes) French LE Incidence GBD DWs Leliveld et al. [29] 2020 Single‑country Netherlands • • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 NA Incidence Empirical DWs Lin [59] 2016 Multi‑country Global • • NR GBD standard model life tables Prevalence GBD DWs Lukaschek et al. [66]2012 Single‑country Germany • • ICD‑10 German LE NA NA Lunevicius & Haagsma [41]2018 Single‑country England (9 Eng‑ lish Regions) • • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 GBD standard model life tables Prevalence GBD DWs Lyons et al. [45] 2017 Multi‑country EU‑28 • • • ICD‑10 GBD standard model life tables Incidence Empirical DWs Majdan et al. [67] 2017 Multi‑country EU‑16 • • • ICD‑10 European Union life table NA NA Naghavi et al. [68]2019 Multi‑country Global • • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 GBD standard model life tables NA NA NHS Health Scotland [39]2016 Single‑country Scotland • • • ICD‑10 Scottish life table Prevalence GBD DWs NHS Health Scotland [40]2016 Single‑country Scotland • • • ICD‑10 Scottish life table Prevalence GBD DWs Peden et al. [61] 2002 Multi‑country Global • • • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 GBD standard model life tables Incidence GBD DWs Page 9 of 15 Charalampousetal. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:1564 Table 2 (continued) Author Year Single‑ or multi‑country category? Geographic Location Type of study Injury classification Classification of injury diagnosis Design choices of YLL calculations Design choices of YLD calculations Independent study GBD‑ linked study Cause‑ of‑injury category Nature‑ of‑injury category Incidence‑ or prevalence‑ based approach? Usage of disability weights Polinder et al. [47]2007 Multi‑country Austria; Denmark; UK (England & Wales); Ireland; Norway; Nether‑ lands • • • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 GBD standard model life tables Incidence GBD DWs Polinder et al. [46]2010 Multi‑country Austria; Latvia; Denmark; UK (England & Wales); Ireland; Netherlands; Norway; Slovenia • • • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 GBD standard model life tables Incidence GBD DWs; Empiri‑ cal DWs Polinder et al. [31]2012 Single‑country Netherlands • • ICD‑9 (aggre‑ gated to the EUROCOST clas‑ sification) GBD standard model life tables Incidence Empirical DWs Polinder et al. [30]2015 Single‑country Netherlands • • ICD‑9 (MAIS code; aggre‑ gated to the EUROCOST clas‑ sification) GBD standard model life tables Incidence Empirical DWs Prins et al. [32] 2021 Single‑country Netherlands • • NA NA Incidence Empirical DWs Scholten et al. [33]2014 Single‑country Netherlands • • ICD‑9 GBD standard model life tables Incidence Empirical DWs Snijders et al. [34] 2016 Single‑country Netherlands • • • ICD‑9 Dutch life table Incidence Empirical DWs Sethi et al. [62] 2008 Multi‑country WHO European Region • • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 GBD standard model life tables Incidence GBD DWs Spronk et al. [48] 2020 Multi‑country Netherlands; New Zealand; Australia • • NA NA Incidence Empirical DWs Tainio et al. [35] 2014 Single‑country Sweden • • • ICD‑9; ICD‑10 (AIS code) GBD standard model life tables Incidence GBD DWs Tainio [42] 2015 Single‑country Poland • • NR NR Polish data on traffic fatalities and GBD 2010 data NR