Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34078366›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2021

Public health utility of cause of death data: applying empirical algorithms to improve data quality.

Sarah Charlotte Johnson, Matthew Cunningham, Ilse N Dippenaar, Fablina Sharara, Eve E Wool, Kareha M Agesa, Chieh Han, Molly K Miller-Petrie, Shadrach Wilson, John E Fuller and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing 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

83 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Burden of disease attributable to PMEnvironmental health : a global access science source · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

17 authors.

Sarah Charlotte Johnson *Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Matthew Cunningham *Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Ilse N DippenaarInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Fablina ShararaInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Eve E WoolInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Kareha M AgesaInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Chieh HanInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Molly K Miller-PetrieDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Shadrach WilsonInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
John E FullerInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Shelly BalassyanoInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Gregory J BertolacciInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Nicole Davis WeaverInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
GBD Cause of Death Collaborators
Alan D LopezInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Christopher J L MurrayInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Mohsen NaghaviInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. nagham@uw.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-6209-1513

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate, comprehensive, cause-specific mortality estimates are crucial for informing public health decision making worldwide. Incorrectly or vaguely assigned deaths, defined as garbage-coded deaths, mask the true cause distribution. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study has developed methods to create comparable, timely, cause-specific mortality estimates; an impactful data processing method is the reallocation of garbage-coded deaths to a plausible underlying cause of death. We identify the pattern of garbage-coded deaths in the world and present the methods used to determine their redistribution to generate more plausible cause of death assignments.

methodsWe describe the methods developed for the GBD 2019 study and subsequent iterations to redistribute garbage-coded deaths in vital registration data to plausible underlying causes. These methods include analysis of multiple cause data, negative correlation, impairment, and proportional redistribution. We classify garbage codes into classes according to the level of specificity of the reported cause of death (CoD) and capture trends in the global pattern of proportion of garbage-coded deaths, disaggregated by these classes, and the relationship between this proportion and the Socio-Demographic Index. We examine the relative importance of the top four garbage codes by age and sex and demonstrate the impact of redistribution on the annual GBD CoD rankings.

resultsThe proportion of least-specific (class 1 and 2) garbage-coded deaths ranged from 3.7% of all vital registration deaths to 67.3% in 2015, and the age-standardized proportion had an overall negative association with the Socio-Demographic Index. When broken down by age and sex, the category for unspecified lower respiratory infections was responsible for nearly 30% of garbage-coded deaths in those under 1 year of age for both sexes, representing the largest proportion of garbage codes for that age group. We show how the cause distribution by number of deaths changes before and after redistribution for four countries: Brazil, the United States, Japan, and France, highlighting the necessity of accounting for garbage-coded deaths in the GBD.

conclusionsWe provide a detailed description of redistribution methods developed for CoD data in the GBD; these methods represent an overall improvement in empiricism compared to past reliance on a priori knowledge.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyGlobal HealthAlgorithmsBrazilCause of DeathFemaleFranceHumansJapanMaleCause of deathGarbage codesGlobal Burden of DiseaseRedistributionStar ranking systemVital registration

Identifiers

PMID34078366
PMCPMC8170729

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.