Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34098975›Full record

ArticlePopulation health metrics2021

Generating age-specific mortality statistics from incomplete death registration data: two applications of the empirical completeness method.

Tim Adair, Alan D Lopez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Population health metrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Tim AdairMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Level 5, Building 379, 207 Bouverie Street, Carlton, Victoria, 3010, Australia. timothy.adair@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-1562-4452
Alan D LopezInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, 2301 5th Ave, Seattle, WA, 98121, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe study aims to assess two approaches that apply the empirical completeness method to generate age-specific mortality statistics from incomplete death registration systems.

methodsWe use the empirical completeness method to calculate all-age death registration completeness, which is used with a model life table to generate mortality statistics and age-specific completeness using (1) the conventional method and (2) the equivalent deaths method. The results are compared with a capture-recapture (C-RC) study and three alternative mortality estimates for Brazilian states, and C-RC studies in Thailand, Oman and Vietnam, which independently estimate the level and age pattern of mortality or completeness.

resultsThe empirical completeness method produces similar estimates of all-age completeness of registration to the C-RC studies. Compared with C-RC studies, at 15-59 years, the conventional method's estimates of mortality and completeness are more concordant, while at 60-84 years the equivalent death method's estimates are closer. Estimates of life expectancy from the two approaches each have similar concordance with the C-RC studies. For male adult mortality in Brazilian states, there is relatively strong average correlation of this study's estimates with three alternative estimates.

conclusionsThe two approaches produce mortality statistics from incomplete data that are mostly concordant with C-RC studies, and can be most usefully applied to subnational populations.

Indexed as

Life ExpectancyResearch DesignAdultAge FactorsHumansLife TablesMaleSurvival AnalysisCapture-recaptureCivil registrationCompletenessData qualityMortalityVital statistics

Identifiers

PMID34098975
PMCPMC8186206

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.