ArticleBMC public health2015
How much do the physician review and InterVA model agree in determining causes of death? A comparative analysis of deaths in rural Ethiopia.
Article in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Causes and circumstances of maternal death: a secondary analysis of the Community-Level Interventions for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) trials cohort.The Lancet. Global health · 2021Trial
- Comparison of causes of stillbirth and child deaths as determined by verbal autopsy and minimally invasive tissue sampling.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Comparison of the Causes of Death Identified Using Automated Verbal Autopsy and Complete Autopsy among Brought-in-Dead Cases at a Tertiary Hospital in Sub-Sahara Africa.Applied clinical informatics · 2022Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite it is costly, slow and non-reproducible process, physician review (PR) is a commonly used method to interpret verbal autopsy data. However, there is a growing interest to adapt a new automated and internally consistent method called InterVA. This study evaluated the level of agreement in determining causes of death between PR and the InterVA model.
methodsVerbal autopsy data for 434 cases collected between September 2009 and November 2012, were interpreted using both PR and the InterVA model. Cohen's kappa statistic (κ) was used to compare the level of chance corrected case-by-case agreement in the diagnosis reached by the PR and InterVA model.
resultsBoth methods gave comparable cause specific mortality fractions of communicable diseases (36.6% by PR and 36.2% by the model), non-communicable diseases (31.1% by PR and 38.2% by the model) and accidents/injuries (12.9% by PR and 10.1% by the model). The level of case-by-case chance corrected concordance between the two methods was 0.33 (95% CI for κ = 0.29-0.34). The highest and lowest agreements were seen for accidents/injuries and non-communicable diseases; with κ = 0.75 and κ = 0.37, respectively.
conclusionIf the InterVA were used in place of the existing PR process, the overall diagnosis would be fairly similar. The methods had better agreement in important public health diseases like; TB, perinatal causes, and pneumonia/sepsis; and lower in cardiovascular diseases and neoplasms. Therefore, both methods need to be validated against a gold-standard diagnosis of death.
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.