Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37693847›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in big data2023

Evaluation of methods for assigning causes of death from verbal autopsies in India.

Sudhir K Benara, Saurabh Sharma, Atul Juneja, Saritha Nair, B K Gulati, Kh Jitenkumar Singh, Lucky Singh, Ved Prakash Yadav, Chalapati Rao, M Vishnu Vardhana Rao

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in big data, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sudhir K Benara *Indian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Medical Statistics, New Delhi, India.
Saurabh Sharma *Indian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Medical Statistics, New Delhi, India.
Atul JunejaIndian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Medical Statistics, New Delhi, India.
Saritha NairIndian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Medical Statistics, New Delhi, India.
B K GulatiIndian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Medical Statistics, New Delhi, India.
Kh Jitenkumar SinghIndian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Medical Statistics, New Delhi, India.
Lucky SinghIndian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Medical Statistics, New Delhi, India.
Ved Prakash YadavCollege of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Chalapati RaoWorld Health Organization, New Delhi, India.
M Vishnu Vardhana RaoIndian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Medical Statistics, New Delhi, India.
Indian Council of Medical Research · INAustralian National University · AUWorld Health Organization - India · IN

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Physician-coded verbal autopsy (PCVA) is the most widely used method to determine causes of death (COD) in countries where medical certification of death is low. Computer-coded verbal autopsy (CCVA), an alternative method to PCVA for assigning the COD is considered to be efficient and cost-effective. However, the performance of CCVA as compared to PCVA is yet to be established in the Indian context. Methods: We evaluated the performance of PCVA and three CCVA methods i.e., InterVA 5, InSilico, and Tariff 2.0 on verbal autopsies done using the WHO 2016 VA tool on 2,120 reference standard cases developed from five tertiary care hospitals of Delhi. PCVA methodology involved dual independent review with adjudication, where required. Metrics to assess performance were Cause Specific Mortality Fraction (CSMF), sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), CSMF Accuracy, and Kappa statistic. Results: In terms of the measures of the overall performance of COD assignment methods, for CSMF Accuracy, the PCVA method achieved the highest score of 0.79, followed by 0.67 for Tariff_2.0, 0.66 for Inter-VA and 0.62 for InSilicoVA. The PCVA method also achieved the highest agreement (57%) and Kappa scores (0.54). The PCVA method showed the highest sensitivity for 15 out of 20 causes of death. Conclusion: Our study found that the PCVA method had the best performance out of all the four COD assignment methods that were tested in our study sample. In order to improve the performance of CCVA methods, multicentric studies with larger sample sizes need to be conducted using the WHO VA tool.

Indexed as

cause of deathcomputer-coded verbal autopsy (CCVA)Indiaphysician-coded verbal autopsy (PCVA)verbal autopsy

Identifiers

PMID37693847
PMCPMC10483407
OpenAlexW4386135650

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.