Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31046868›Full record

ArticlePrehospital and disaster medicine2019

Evaluation of Oklahoma's Electronic Death Registration System and Event Fatality Markers for Disaster-Related Mortality Surveillance - Oklahoma USA, May 2013.

Anindita N Issa, Kelly Baker, Derek Pate, Royal Law, Tesfaye Bayleyegn, Rebecca S Noe

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Prehospital and disaster medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Anindita N Issa1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,Chamblee, Georgia,USA.
Kelly Baker2.Oklahoma State Department of Health,Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,USA.
Derek Pate2.Oklahoma State Department of Health,Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,USA.
Royal Law1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,Chamblee, Georgia,USA.
Tesfaye Bayleyegn1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,Chamblee, Georgia,USA.
Rebecca S Noe1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,Chamblee, Georgia,USA.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOfficial counts of deaths attributed to disasters are often under-reported, thus adversely affecting public health messaging designed to prevent further mortality. During the Oklahoma (USA) May 2013 tornadoes, Oklahoma State Health Department Division of Vital Records (VR; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA) piloted a flagging procedure to track tornado-attributed deaths within its Electronic Death Registration System (EDRS). To determine if the EDRS was capturing all tornado-attributed deaths, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; Atlanta, Georgia USA) evaluated three event fatality markers (EFM), which are used to collate information about deaths for immediate response and retrospective research efforts.

methodsOklahoma identified 48 tornado-attributed deaths through a retrospective review of hospital morbidity and mortality records. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; Atlanta, Georgia USA) analyzed the sensitivity, timeliness, and validity for three EFMs, which included: (1) a tornado-specific flag on the death record; (2) a tornado-related term in the death certificate; and (3) X37, the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) code in the death record for Victim of a Cataclysmic Storm, which includes tornadoes.

resultsThe flag was the most sensitive EFM (89.6%; 43/48), followed by the tornado term (75.0%; 36/48), and the X37 code (56.2%; 27/48). The most-timely EFM was the flag, which took 2.0 median days to report (range 0-10 days), followed by the tornado term (median 3.5 days; range 1-21), and the X37 code (median >10 days; range 2-122). Over one-half (52.1%; 25/48) of the tornado-attributed deaths were missing at least one EFM. Twenty-six percent (11/43) of flagged records had no tornado term, and 44.1% (19/43) had no X37 code. Eleven percent (4/36) of records with a tornado term did not have a flag.

conclusionThe tornado-specific flag was the most sensitive and timely EFM. Using the flag to collate death records and identify additional deaths without the tornado term and X37 code may improve immediate response and retrospective investigations. Moreover, each of the EFMs can serve as quality controls for the others to maximize capture of all disaster-attributed deaths from vital statistics records in the EDRS.Issa AN, Baker K, Pate D, Law R, Bayleyegn T, Noe RS. Evaluation of Oklahoma's Electronic Death Registration System and event fatality markers for disaster-related mortality surveillance - Oklahoma USA, May 2013. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2019;34(2):125-131.

Indexed as

Death CertificatesDisaster PlanningTornadoesHumansMortalityOklahomaPopulation SurveillanceReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity10th RevisiondisasterEDRSEDRS Electronic Death Registration SystemEFM event fatality markerEOC Emergency Operations CenterflagICD-10 International Classification of DiseasesIPS Oklahoma State Department of Health Injury Prevention ServiceME medical examinermortalityNCHS National Center for Health StatisticsOCME Oklahoma Office of the Chief Medical ExaminertornadoVR Oklahoma State Department of Health Division of Vital Records

Identifiers

PMID31046868
PMCPMC6953479

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.