ArticlePopulation health metrics2015
Measuring causes of death in populations: a new metric that corrects cause-specific mortality fractions for chance.
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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agreement between cause of death assignment by computer-coded verbal autopsy methods and physician coding of verbal autopsy interviews in South Africa.Global health action · 2023Article
- Validation of physician certified verbal autopsy using conventional autopsy: a large study of adult non-external causes of death in a metropolitan area in Brazil.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Are cause of death data for Shanghai fit for purpose? A retrospective study of medical records.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Assessment of the quality of the vital registration system for under-5 mortality in Yucatan, Mexico.Population health metrics · 2022Article
- Assessing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Physicians for Home Death Certification in Shanghai: Application of SmartVA.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Robustness of the Tariff method for diagnosing verbal autopsies: impact of additional site data on the relationship between symptom and cause.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Automatically determining cause of death from verbal autopsy narratives.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Article
- Article
- Assessing the quality of medical death certification: a case study of concordance between national statistics and results from a medical record review in a regional hospital in the Philippines.Population health metrics · 2018Article
- Comparing tariff and medical assistant assigned causes of death from verbal autopsy interviews in Matlab, Bangladesh: implications for a health and demographic surveillance system.Population health metrics · 2018Article
- Performance of InSilicoVA for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards.BMC medicine · 2018Article
- Danish first aid books compliance with the new evidence-based non-resuscitative first aid guidelines.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2018Article
- Automated verbal autopsy classification: using one-against-all ensemble method and Naïve Bayes classifier.Gates open research · 2018Article
- Global, regional, and national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes of death, 1980-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015.Lancet (London, England) · 2016Article
- A shortened verbal autopsy instrument for use in routine mortality surveillance systems.BMC medicine · 2015Article
- Improving performance of the Tariff Method for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies.BMC medicine · 2015Article
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
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
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.