Observational studyBMJ open2022
Impacts of using different standard populations in calculating age-standardised death rates when age-specific death rates in the populations being compared do not have a consistent relationship: a cross-sectional population-based observational study on US state HIV death rates.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and comparative evaluation to develop and validate a comprehensive framework for cancer surveillance systems.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Pooled it
- Global patterns of pertussis incidence and vaccination strategies: implications of divergent surveillance data.NPJ vaccines · 2026Article
- Long-term secular trends in dermatomyositis and polymyositis mortality in the USA from 1981 to 2020 according to underlying and multiple cause of death mortality data.Arthritis research & therapy · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine if the rankings of state HIV age-standardised death rates (SDRs) would be different if different standard populations (SPs) were used when age-specific death rates (ASDRs) in states being compared do not have a consistent relationship.
designA cross-sectional population-based observational study.
setting36 states in the USA.
participantsResidents living in the 36 states.
main outcome measuresHIV SDR by state using two SPs, namely US2000 and US2020.
resultsUS HIV ASDR by state did not have consistent relationships. Of 36 states analysed, the HIV death rates of people aged 55-64 years were higher than people aged 45-54 years in 20 states; on the contrary, the HIV death rates of people aged 55-64 years were lower than people aged 45-54 years in 16 states. No change in ranking in 19 states and change in ranking in 17 states. Of the 17 states whose rankings changed, the rankings of 9 states calculated using US2000 were higher (lower SDR) than those calculated using US2020; in 8 states, the rankings were lower (higher SDR). The states with the greatest changes in rankings between US2000 and US2020 were Kentucky (12th and 9th, respectively) and Massachusetts (8th and 11th, respectively).
conclusionsCalculating SDR using elder SP (US2020) would disproportionately increase the SDR in states with peak HIV death rate in older adults than those used younger SP (US2000).
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.