ArticleThe Indian journal of medical research2021
Comparative performance of verbal autopsy methods in identifying causes of adult mortality: A case study in India.
Article in The Indian journal of medical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Rates and causes of neonatal and under-five mortality: insights from a national household survey in Pakistan.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & objectives: Cause of death assignment from verbal autopsy (VA) questionnaires is conventionally accomplished through physician review. However, since recently, computer softwares have been developed to assign the cause of death. The present study evaluated the performance of computer software in assigning the cause of death from the VA, as compared to physician review. Methods: VA of 600 adult deaths was conducted using open- and close-ended questionnaires in Nandpur Kalour Block of Punjab, India. Entire VA forms were used by two physicians independently to assign the cause of death using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD)-10 codes. In case of disagreement between them, reconciliation was done, and in cases of persistent disagreements finally, adjudication was done by a third physician. InterVA-4-generated causes from close-ended questionnaires were compared using Kappa statistics with causes assigned by physicians using a questionnaire having both open- and close-ended questions. At the population level, Cause-Specific Mortality Fraction (CSMF) accuracy and P-value from McNemar's paired Chi-square were calculated. CSMF accuracy indicates the absolute deviation of a set of proportions of causes of death out of the total number of deaths between the two methods. Results: The overall agreement between InterVA-4 and physician coding was 'fair' (κ=0.42; 95% confidence interval 0.38, 0.46). CSMF accuracy was found to be 0.71. The differences in proportions from the two methods were statistically different as per McNemar's paired Chi-square test for ischaemic heart diseases, liver cirrhosis and maternal deaths. Interpretation & conclusions: In comparison to physicians, assignment of causes of death by InterVA- 4 was only 'fair'. Hence, it may be appropriate to continue with physician review as the optimal option available in the current scenario.
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.