ArticleGlobal health action2020
Ascertaining cause of mortality among middle-aged and older persons using computer-coded and expert review verbal autopsies in the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study.
Article in Global health action, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Excess mortality associated with high ozone exposure: A national cohort study in China.Environmental science and ecotechnology · 2023Article
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVerbal autopsy is designed to ascertain causes of death that are not registered or certified. Verbal autopsy has been validated in multiple settings but has not been as widely evaluated for older populations as for younger age groups.
objectiveThis study aims to provide empirical evidence of the value of verbal autopsy interviews in the context of population-based surveys of older adults by comparing the cause-of-death assignments derived from two methods of interpreting verbal autopsy data.
methodsData used in this study come from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study, a nationally representative longitudinal survey of older Chinese. We compared 407 causes of death determined using InterVA, which is a computer-coded method, and causes of death as assigned by experts; then evaluated factors that affect the results of the two approaches.
resultsAmong the 407 deaths, neoplasms, cardiac disease, and stroke are the leading causes of death according to both approaches. The consistency of the two approaches is about 45% at the individual level. The primary reason for the mismatch is that no cause of death could be assigned for more than 25% of the sample based on expert review. A higher likelihood of mismatch is associated with advanced age and a long period between death and verbal autopsy interview.
conclusionBoth approaches identify the same leading causes of death at the aggregate level, but consistency is relatively low at the individual level. InterVA works well when causes of death are characterized by distinctive signs and symptoms. Grouping the various causes of death with shared etiology or common risk factors may help improve the quality of the ascertainment of causes of death. Open-ended narratives are helpful because they provide information about the circumstances surrounding the death that are not available in the structured verbal autopsy interviews.
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.