Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31146736›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2019

An integrated approach to processing WHO-2016 verbal autopsy data: the InterVA-5 model.

Peter Byass, Laith Hussain-Alkhateeb, Lucia D'Ambruoso, Samuel Clark, Justine Davies, Edward Fottrell, Jon Bird, Chodziwadziwa Kabudula, Stephen Tollman, Kathleen Kahn and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Hierarchical latent class models for mortality surveillance using partially verified verbal autopsies.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Peter ByassDepartment of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. peter.byass@umu.se.
Laith Hussain-AlkhateebOccupational and Environmental Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Lucia D'AmbruosoDepartment of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Samuel ClarkMedical Research Council/Wits University Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Justine DaviesMedical Research Council/Wits University Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Edward FottrellInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Jon BirdDepartment of Computing, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Chodziwadziwa KabudulaMedical Research Council/Wits University Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Stephen TollmanDepartment of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Kathleen KahnDepartment of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Linus SchiölerOccupational and Environmental Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Max PetzoldHealth Metrics, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
University of Gothenburg · SEUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZAAgincourt Health and Socio-Demographic Surveillance System · ZAUmeå University · SEUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Verbal Autopsy: Reimagining Data & Automated Cause Assignment (using ALPHA Network data)R01HD086227 · NICHD · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI CLARK, SAMUEL J · 2016 to 2021
$2.4M
Medical Research Council MR/N005597/1Medical Research Council MR/P014844/1NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD086227
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVerbal autopsy is an increasingly important methodology for assigning causes to otherwise uncertified deaths, which amount to around 50% of global mortality and cause much uncertainty for health planning. The World Health Organization sets international standards for the structure of verbal autopsy interviews and for cause categories that can reasonably be derived from verbal autopsy data. In addition, computer models are needed to efficiently process large quantities of verbal autopsy interviews to assign causes of death in a standardised manner. Here, we present the InterVA-5 model, developed to align with the WHO-2016 verbal autopsy standard. This is a harmonising model that can process input data from WHO-2016, as well as earlier WHO-2012 and Tariff-2 formats, to generate standardised cause-specific mortality profiles for diverse contexts. The software development involved building on the earlier InterVA-4 model, and the expanded knowledge base required for InterVA-5 was informed by analyses from a training dataset drawn from the Population Health Metrics Research Collaboration verbal autopsy reference dataset, as well as expert input.

resultsThe new model was evaluated against a test dataset of 6130 cases from the Population Health Metrics Research Collaboration and 4009 cases from the Afghanistan National Mortality Survey dataset. Both of these sources contained around three quarters of the input items from the WHO-2016, WHO-2012 and Tariff-2 formats. Cause-specific mortality fractions across all applicable WHO cause categories were compared between causes assigned in participating tertiary hospitals and InterVA-5 in the test dataset, with concordance correlation coefficients of 0.92 for children and 0.86 for adults. The InterVA-5 model's capacity to handle different input formats was evaluated in the Afghanistan dataset, with concordance correlation coefficients of 0.97 and 0.96 between the WHO-2016 and the WHO-2012 format for children and adults respectively, and 0.92 and 0.87 between the WHO-2016 and the Tariff-2 format respectively.

conclusionsDespite the inherent difficulties of determining "truth" in assigning cause of death, these findings suggest that the InterVA-5 model performs well and succeeds in harmonising across a range of input formats. As more primary data collected under WHO-2016 become available, it is likely that InterVA-5 will undergo minor re-versioning in the light of practical experience. The model is an important resource for measuring and evaluating cause-specific mortality globally.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationElectronic Data ProcessingInterviews as TopicSystems IntegrationAdultAfghanistanAutopsyCause of DeathChildDatasets as TopicFemaleHumansMalePopulation HealthQuality Indicators, Health CareSoftwareCause of deathCivil registrationInterVAMortality surveillanceVerbal autopsyWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID31146736
PMCPMC6543589
OpenAlexW2947667755

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.