ArticleBMJ open2023
Validating the InterVA-5 cause of death analytical tool: using mortality data from the Comprehensive Health and Epidemiological Surveillance System in Papua New Guinea.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring mortality patterns in Pakistani children and adolescents aged 5-19: evidence from a national verbal and social autopsy study.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Rates and causes of neonatal and under-five mortality: insights from a national household survey in Pakistan.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Understanding stillbirths and maternal deaths in Pakistan: evidence from a national household survey.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Comparison of verbal autopsy using a large language model to biologically confirmed causes of death for malaria and other communicable diseases among children in six sub-Saharan African countries.Malaria journal · 2026Article
- A comparison of verbal autopsy assignment methods to obtain adult cause-specific mortality in two longitudinal studies in Rakai and Kalungu districts of South Central, Uganda.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Excess mortality during COVID-19 pandemic in Bangladesh - evidence from a rural survey.Journal of global health · 2024Article
- Article
- Assessing health impact of COVID-19 and associated household socioeconomic factors in Papua New Guinea: evidence from the Comprehensive Health and Epidemiological Surveillance System.BMJ public health · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveInterVA-5 is a new version of an analytical tool for cause of death (COD) analysis at the population level. This study validates the InterVA-5 against the medical review method, using mortality data in Papua New Guinea (PNG). DESIGN AND
settingThis study used mortality data collected from January 2018 to December 2020 in eight surveillance sites of the Comprehensive Health and Epidemiological Surveillance System (CHESS), established by the PNG Institute of Medical Research in six major provinces.
methodsThe CHESS demographic team conducted verbal autopsy (VA) interviews with close relatives of the deceased, who died in communities within the catchment areas of CHESS, using the WHO 2016 VA instrument. COD of the deceased was assigned by InterVA-5 tool, and independently certified by the medical team. Consistency, difference and agreement between the InterVA-5 model and medical review were assessed. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of the InterVA-5 tool were calculated with reference to the medical review method.
resultsSpecific COD of 926 deceased people was included in the validation. Agreement between the InterVA-5 tool and medical review was high (kappa test: 0.72; p<0.01). Sensitivity and PPV of the InterVA-5 were 93% and 72% for cardiovascular diseases, 84% and 86% for neoplasms, 65% and 100% for other chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs), and 78% and 64% for maternal deaths, respectively. For infectious diseases and external CODs, sensitivity and PPV of the InterVA-5 were 94% and 90%, respectively, while the sensitivity and PPV of the medical review method were both 54% for classifying neonatal CODs.
conclusionThe InterVA-5 tool works well in the PNG context to assign specific CODs of infectious diseases, cardiovascular diseases, neoplasms and injuries. Further improvements with respect to chronic NCDs, maternal deaths and neonatal deaths are needed.
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.