ReviewBMJ global health2020
Empiricism in non-communicable disease mortality measurement for the Asia-Pacific: lost in translation.
Review in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mortality estimates for WHO SEAR countries: problems and prospects.BMJ global health · 2021Review
- Premature adult mortality in India: what is the size of the matter?BMJ global health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Control of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is a key target for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030. Available information indicates that countries in the Asia-Pacific Region accounted for 63% of the global NCD mortality burden in 2016. The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for the Asia Pacific (UNESCAP) Regional SDG progress report for 2020 included estimates of trends in NCD mortality rates from 2000 to 2016, which showed considerable variation in national NCD mortality by sex and location.However, while the UNESCAP report states that there was sufficient primary data to derive these NCD mortality estimates for all countries, the critical gaps in availability of national data on causes of death in the Asia-Pacific region are well known. A closer review identified that the UNESCAP obtained these estimates from the United Nations Statistics Division, which in turn obtained the same estimates from WHO. Further analysis revealed that these organisations used varying and often inconsistent terms to describe estimation methodology as well as primary data availability for different countries, with substantial potential for misinterpretation.The analysis also found that for countries without primary data, WHO reported NCD mortality estimates were based on complex epidemiological models developed for the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study, and this contradicts the UNESCAP rating of primary data sufficiency. The GBD Study also derives modelled cause of death estimates for countries with national data, but these were different from WHO estimates for these countries. This article discusses prevailing international practices in using modelled estimates as a substitute for empirical data, and the implications of these practices for health policy. In conclusion, a strategic approach to strengthen national mortality statistics programmes in data deficient countries is presented, to improve NCD mortality measurement in the Asia-Pacific Region.
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.