ArticleBMJ global health2018
Performance of verbal autopsy methods in estimating HIV-associated mortality among adults in South Africa.
Article in BMJ global health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- A pilot cross-sectional study of non-communicable diseases in TB household contacts.IJTLD open · 2024Article
- Pregnancy-related mortality up to 1 year postpartum in sub-Saharan Africa: an analysis of verbal autopsy data from six countries.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2024Article
- 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
- Validity of InterVA model versus physician review of verbal autopsy for tracking tuberculosis-related mortality in Ethiopia.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Estimating causes of out-of-hospital deaths in China: application of SmartVA methods.Population health metrics · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionVerbal autopsy (VA) can be integrated into civil registration and vital statistics systems, but its accuracy in determining HIV-associated causes of death (CoD) is uncertain. We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of VA questions in determining HIV status and antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation and compared HIV-associated mortality fractions assigned by different VA interpretation methods.
methodsUsing the WHO 2012 instrument with added ART questions, VA was conducted for deaths among adults with known HIV status (356 HIV positive and 103 HIV negative) in South Africa. CoD were assigned using physician-certified VA (PCVA) and computer-coded VA (CCVA) methods and compared with documented HIV status.
resultsThe sensitivity of VA questions in detecting HIV status and ART initiation was 84.3% (95% CI 80 to 88) and 91.0% (95% CI 86 to 95); 283/356 (79.5%) HIV-positive individuals were assigned HIV-associated CoD by PCVA, 166 (46.6%) by InterVA-4.03, 201 (56.5%) by InterVA-5, and 80 (22.5%) and 289 (81.2%) by SmartVA-Analyze V.1.1.1 and V.1.2.1. Agreement between PCVA and older CCVA methods was poor (chance-corrected concordance [CCC] <0; cause-specific mortality fraction [CSMF] accuracy ≤56%) but better between PCVA and updated methods (CCC 0.21-0.75; CSMF accuracy 65%-98%). All methods were specific (specificity 87% to 96%) in assigning HIV-associated CoD.
conclusionAll CCVA interpretation methods underestimated the HIV-associated mortality fraction compared with PCVA; InterVA-5 and SmartVA-Analyze V.1.2.1 performed better than earlier versions. Changes to VA methods and classification systems are needed to track progress towards targets for reducing HIV-associated mortality.
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.