ArticleGlobal journal of health science2013
Testing an unconventional mortality information source in the canton of Geneva Switzerland.
Article in Global journal of health science, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mortality data are often unavailable, incomplete, and difficult to access for research and other purposes. Gaps in mortality data reports, particularly those detailing place of death, deprive healthcare professionals, decision-makers, and many others of the information that is needed to plan, implement, and evaluate interventions designed for purposes such as to assist people in achieving their preferred death place or reduce hospital utilization. Alternative methods of collecting reliable and valid data on death place may be needed. Our study primarily compared mortality data from a conventional information system (Federal Statistical Office) with mortality data collected using an unconventional system (funeral homes) over a 6-year period (2005-10) for the canton of Geneva Switzerland. Only a small average difference (4.8%) in death incidence was found. Death place data comparisons were also useful. This study suggests that the unconventional data from funeral homes provides reasonably reliable, valid, timely, and useful mortality data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.