Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31597655›Full record

ArticleClinical medicine & research2020

Death Certification: Errors and Interventions.

Leah M Schuppener, Kelly Olson, Erin G Brooks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical medicine & research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Underlying and contributing causes of mortality from CDC WONDER-Insights for researchers.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Digital transformation of mortality reporting using an ICD-11 integrated death certificate system in Suriname.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Leah M SchuppenerUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Madison, Wisconsin USA.
Kelly OlsonUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Madison, Wisconsin USA.
Erin G BrooksUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Madison, Wisconsin USA egbrooks@wisc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDeath certificates are legal documents containing critical information. Despite the importance of accurate certification, errors remain common. Estimates of error prevalence vary between studies, and error classification systems are often unclear. Relatively few studies have assessed the frequency at which death certification errors occur in US hospitals, and even fewer have attempted a standardized classification of errors based on their severity. In the current study, our objective was to evaluate the frequency of death certification errors at an academic center, implement a standardized method of categorizing error severity, and analyze sources of error to better identify ways to improve death certification accuracy.

designWe retrospectively reviewed the accuracy of cause and manner of death certification at our regional academic institution for 179 cases in which autopsy was performed between 2013-2016. We compared non-pathologist physician completed death certificates with the cause and manner of death ultimately determined at autopsy.

methodsErrors were classified via a 5-point scale of increasing error severity. Grades I-IIc were considered minor errors, while III-V were considered severe. Sources of error were analyzed.

resultsIn the majority of cases (85%), death certificates contained ≥ one error, with multiple errors (51%) being more common than single (33%). The most frequent error type was Grade 1 (53%), followed by Grade III (30%), and Grade IIb (18%). The more severe Grade IV errors were seen in 23% of cases; no Grade V errors were found. No amendments were made to any death certificates following finalization of autopsy results during the study period.

conclusionThis study reaffirms the importance of autopsy and autopsy pathologists in ensuring accurate and complete death certification. It also suggests that death certification errors may be more frequent than previously reported. We propose a method by which death certification errors can be classified in terms of increasing severity. By understanding the types of errors occurring on death certificates, academic institutions can work to improve certification accuracy. Better clinician education, coordination with autopsy pathologists, and implementation of a systematic approach to ensuring concordance of death certificates with autopsy results is recommended.

Indexed as

Cause of DeathDeath CertificatesDiagnostic ErrorsFemaleHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesCause of deathDeath certificationDeath recordElectronic death registrationManner of death

Identifiers

PMID31597655
PMCPMC7153801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.