ArticleHealth science reports2022
Quality of death certificates completion for COVID-19 cases in the southeast of Iran: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Health science reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence of maternal mortality causes based on ICD-MM: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Pooled it
- Accuracy of information on the underlying cause of death: An analysis in Colombia during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021.PloS one · 2025Article
- Risk factors for deaths associated with COVID-19 according to the cause of death classification in Republic of Korea.Osong public health and research perspectives · 2023Article
- Quality of death certificates completion for COVID-19 cases in the southeast of Iran: A cross-sectional study.Health science reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: Death certificate (DC) data provides a basis for public health policies and statistics and contributes to the evaluation of a pandemic's evolution. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of the COVID-19-related DC completion. Methods: A descriptive-analytical study was conducted to review a total of 339 medical records and DCs issued for COVID-19 cases from February 20 to September 21, 2020. A univariate analysis ( Results: Errors in DCs were classified as major and minor. All of the 339 examined DCs were erroneous; more than half of DCs (57.8%) had at least one major error; all of them had at least one minor error. Improper sequencing (49.3%), unacceptable underlying causes of death (UCOD) (33.3%), recording more than one cause per line (20.1%), listing general conditions instead of specific terms (11.2%), illegible handwriting (8.3%), competing causes (6.2%), and mechanisms (3.8%) were most common major errors, respectively. Absence of time interval (100%), listing mechanism allying with UCOD (51.6%), using abbreviations (45.4%), missing major comorbidities (16.5%), and listing major comorbidities in part I (16.5%) were most common minor errors, respectively. Conclusion: The rate of both major and minor errors was high. Using automated tools for recording and selecting death cause(s), promoting certifiers' skills on DC completion, and applying quality control mechanisms in DC documentation can improve death data and statistics.
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.