Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26464564›Full record

ArticlePopulation health metrics2015

Measuring causes of death in populations: a new metric that corrects cause-specific mortality fractions for chance.

Abraham D Flaxman, Peter T Serina, Bernardo Hernandez, Christopher J L Murray, Ian Riley, Alan D Lopez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Population health metrics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Automatically determining cause of death from verbal autopsy narratives.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Danish first aid books compliance with the new evidence-based non-resuscitative first aid guidelines.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Abraham D FlaxmanInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, 2301 Fifth Ave., Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98121 USA.
Peter T SerinaInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, 2301 Fifth Ave., Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98121 USA.
Bernardo HernandezInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, 2301 Fifth Ave., Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98121 USA.
Christopher J L MurrayInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, 2301 Fifth Ave., Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98121 USA.
Ian RileyUniversity of Queensland, School of Population Health, Level 2 Public Health Building School of Population Health, Herston Road, Herston, QLD 4006 Australia.
Alan D LopezUniversity of Melbourne School of Population and Global Health Building 379, 207 Bouverie St, Parkville, 3010 VIC Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVerbal autopsy is gaining increasing acceptance as a method for determining the underlying cause of death when the cause of death given on death certificates is unavailable or unreliable, and there are now a number of alternative approaches for mapping from verbal autopsy interviews to the underlying cause of death. For public health applications, the population-level aggregates of the underlying causes are of primary interest, expressed as the cause-specific mortality fractions (CSMFs) for a mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive cause list. Until now, CSMF Accuracy is the primary metric that has been used for measuring the quality of CSMF estimation methods. Although it allows for relative comparisons of alternative methods, CSMF Accuracy provides misleading numbers in absolute terms, because even random allocation of underlying causes yields relatively high CSMF accuracy. Therefore, the objective of this study was to develop and test a measure of CSMF that corrects this problem.

methodsWe developed a baseline approach of random allocation and measured its performance analytically and through Monte Carlo simulation. We used this to develop a new metric of population-level estimation accuracy, the Chance Corrected CSMF Accuracy (CCCSMF Accuracy), which has value near zero for random guessing, and negative quality values for estimation methods that are worse than random at the population level.

resultsThe CCCSMF Accuracy formula was found to be CCSMF Accuracy = (CSMF Accuracy - 0.632) / (1 - 0.632), which indicates that, at the population-level, some existing and commonly used VA methods perform worse than random guessing.

conclusionsCCCSMF Accuracy should be used instead of CSMF Accuracy when assessing VA estimation methods because it provides a more easily interpreted measure of the quality of population-level estimates.

Identifiers

PMID26464564
PMCPMC4603634

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.