ArticlePloS one2019
Analysis of causes of death using verbal autopsies and vital registration in Hidalgo, Mexico.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictors of postdischarge mortality among hospitalised children aged 5-14 years at tertiary hospitals in Tanzania: a prospective observational cohort study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Observational
- Computer assisted verbal autopsy: comparing large language models to physicians for assigning causes to 6939 deaths in Sierra Leone from 2019-2022.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Validating the diagnostic accuracy of medical certification: a population-level comparison between verbal autopsy and Saudi medical records causes of death of deceased with type 2 diabetes.Global health action · 2024Article
- Challenges facing physicians in death certification of under-five mortality in Egypt.BMC health services research · 2024Article
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
introductionVerbal autopsy (VA) is a useful tool for evaluating causes of death, especially in places with limited or no vital registration systems. The Population Health Metrics Research Consortium (PHMRC) developed a validated questionnaire and a set of automated methods to determine the cause of death from a VA. However, the application of these methods needs to be tested in a community environment.
objectiveTo estimate cause-specific mortality fractions (CSMFs) using VAs and compare them against those obtained in the vital statistics of the state of Hidalgo, Mexico.
methodsA random sample of deaths occurred in 2009 was selected from vital statistics in the state of Hidalgo. The full PHMRC validated VA instrument was applied to the relatives of the deceased, and the cause of death was determined using Tariff's automated method. The causes of death were grouped into 34 causes for adults, 21 for children and 6 for newborns. Results were compared with cause of death on death certificates for all deaths.
resultsA total of 1,198 VAs were analyzed. The Tariff method was not able to assign a cause of death in only 9% of adults, 2% of children and 7% of neonatal deaths. The CSMFs obtained from the Tariff method were similar in some cases to those of vital statistics (e.g. cirrhosis), but different in others (e.g. sepsis).
conclusionThe application of VAs in a community sample, analyzed with the Tariff method, allowed assigning a cause of death to most of the cases, with results similar to those of vital statistics for most conditions. This tool can be useful to strengthen the quality of vital statistics.
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.