ArticlePublic health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)
Infant Mortality: Development of a Proposed Update to the Dollfus Classification of Infant Deaths.
Article in Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- County-Level Structural Vulnerabilities in Maternal Health and Geographic Variation in Infant Mortality.The Journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Association of State Gestational Age Limit Abortion Laws With Infant Mortality.American journal of preventive medicine · 2021Article
- The value of autopsy in preterm infants at a Swedish tertiary neonatal intensive care unit 2002-2018.Scientific reports · 2021Observational
- The Unrecognized Mortality Burden of Genetic Disorders in Infancy.American journal of public health · 2021Article
- Estimating the Burden of Prematurity on Infant Mortality: A Comparison of Death Certificates and Child Fatality Review in Ohio, 2009-2013.Maternal and child health journal · 2020Article
- Classifying Infant Deaths with a Focus on Prevention Strategies.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIdentifying infant deaths with common underlying causes and potential intervention points is critical to infant mortality surveillance and the development of prevention strategies. We constructed an International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) parallel to the Dollfus cause-of-death classification scheme first published in 1990, which organized infant deaths by etiology and their amenability to prevention efforts.
methodsInfant death records for 1996, dual-coded to the ICD Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and ICD-10, were obtained from the CDC public-use multiple-cause-of-death file on comparability between ICD-9 and ICD-10. We used the underlying cause of death to group 27,821 infant deaths into the nine categories of the ICD-9-based update to Dollfus' original coding scheme, published by Sowards in 1999. Comparability ratios were computed to measure concordance between ICD versions.
resultsThe Dollfus classification system updated with ICD-10 codes had limited agreement with the 1999 modified classification system. Although prematurity, congenital malformations, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and obstetric conditions were the first through fourth most common causes of infant death under both systems, most comparability ratios were significantly different from one system to the other.
conclusionThe Dollfus classification system can be adapted for use with ICD-10 codes to create a comprehensive, etiology-based profile of infant deaths. The potential benefits of using Dollfus logic to guide perinatal mortality reduction strategies, particularly to maternal and child health programs and other initiatives focused on improving infant health, warrant further examination of this method's use in perinatal mortality surveillance.
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.