ArticleBMJ open2020
How large should a cause of death be in order to be included in mortality trend analysis? Deriving a cut-off point from retrospective trend analyses in 21 European countries.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) distinguishes a large number of causes of death (CODs) that could each be studied individually when monitoring time-trends. We aimed to develop recommendations for using the size of CODs as a criterion for their inclusion in long-term trend analysis.
designRetrospective trend analysis.
setting21 European countries of the WHO Mortality Database.
participantsDeaths from CODs (3-position ICD-10 codes) with ≥5 average annual deaths in a 15-year period between 2000 and 2016. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Fitting polynomial regression models, we examined for each COD in each country whether or not changes over time were statistically significant (with α=0.05) and we assessed correlates of this outcome. Applying receiver operating characteristicROC curve diagnostics, we derived COD size thresholds for selecting CODs for trends analysis.
resultsAcross all countries, 64.0% of CODs had significant long-term trends. The odds of having a significant trend increased by 18% for every 10% increase of COD size. The independent effect of country was negligible. As compared to circulatory system diseases, the probability of a significant trend was lower for neoplasms and digestive system diseases, and higher for infectious diseases, mental diseases and signs-and-symptoms. We derived a general threshold of around 30 (range: 28-33) annual deaths for inclusion of a COD in trend analysis. The relevant threshold for neoplasms was around 65 (range: 61-70) and for infectious diseases was 20 (range: 19-20).
conclusionsThe likelihood that long-term trends are detected with statistical significance is strongly related to COD size and varies between ICD-10 chapters, but has no independent relation to country. We recommend a general size criterion of 30 annual deaths to select CODs for long-term mortality-trends analysis in European countries.
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.