ArticlePloS one2015
Verbal Autopsy: Evaluation of Methods to Certify Causes of Death in Uganda.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Causes of death after biannual azithromycin treatment: A community-level randomized clinical trial.PloS one · 2021Trial
- Automated versus physician assignment of cause of death for verbal autopsies: randomized trial of 9374 deaths in 117 villages in India.BMC medicine · 2019Trial
- A comparison of verbal autopsy assignment methods to obtain adult cause-specific mortality in two longitudinal studies in Rakai and Kalungu districts of South Central, Uganda.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- A Qualitative Method To Assess a History of Cerebral Malaria in Malian Children.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- Verbal Autopsy to Assess Postdischarge Mortality in Children With Suspected Sepsis in Uganda.Pediatrics · 2023Article
- Population cause of death estimation using verbal autopsy methods in large-scale field trials of maternal and child health: lessons learned from a 20-year research collaboration in Central Ghana.Emerging themes in epidemiology · 2023Article
- Value of Verbal Autopsy in a Fragile Setting: Reported versus Estimated Community Deaths Associated with COVID-19, Banadir, Somalia.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Analysis of causes of death among brought-in-dead cases in a third-level Hospital in Lusaka, Republic of Zambia, using the tariff method 2.0 for verbal autopsy: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Validation of verbal autopsy methods for assessment of child mortality in sub-Saharan Africa and the policy implication: a rapid review.The Pan African medical journal · 2019Review
- Article
- Validating hierarchical verbal autopsy expert algorithms in a large data set with known causes of death.Journal of global health · 2016Article
- Factors influencing choice of care-seeking for acute fever comparing private chemical shops with health centres and hospitals in Ghana: a study using case-control methodology.Malaria journal · 2016Article
- Long-Term Outcomes of Patients with Digestive Tract Congenital Anomalies and Their Caregivers in Uganda: A Cohort Study.Sage open pediatricsArticle
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
Abstract
To assess different methods for determining cause of death from verbal autopsy (VA) questionnaire data, the intra-rater reliability of Physician-Certified Verbal Autopsy (PCVA) and the accuracy of PCVA, expert-derived (non-hierarchical) and data-driven (hierarchal) algorithms were assessed for determining common causes of death in Ugandan children. A verbal autopsy validation study was conducted from 2008-2009 in three different sites in Uganda. The dataset included 104 neonatal deaths (0-27 days) and 615 childhood deaths (1-59 months) with the cause(s) of death classified by PCVA and physician review of hospital medical records (the 'reference standard'). Of the original 719 questionnaires, 141 (20%) were selected for a second review by the same physicians; the repeat cause(s) of death were compared to the original,and agreement assessed using the Kappa statistic.Physician reviewers' refined non-hierarchical algorithms for common causes of death from existing expert algorithms, from which, hierarchal algorithms were developed. The accuracy of PCVA, non-hierarchical, and hierarchical algorithms for determining cause(s) of death from all 719 VA questionnaires was determined using the reference standard. Overall, intra-rater repeatability was high (83% agreement, Kappa 0.79 [95% CI 0.76-0.82]). PCVA performed well, with high specificity for determining cause of neonatal (>67%), and childhood (>83%) deaths, resulting in fairly accurate cause-specific mortality fraction (CSMF) estimates. For most causes of death in children, non-hierarchical algorithms had higher sensitivity, but correspondingly lower specificity, than PCVA and hierarchical algorithms, resulting in inaccurate CSMF estimates. Hierarchical algorithms were specific for most causes of death, and CSMF estimates were comparable to the reference standard and PCVA. Inter-rater reliability of PCVA was high, and overall PCVA performed well. Hierarchical algorithms performed better than non-hierarchical algorithms due to higher specificity and more accurate CSMF estimates. Use of PCVA to determine cause of death from VA questionnaire data is reasonable while automated data-driven algorithms are improved.
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.