ArticleFrontiers in big data2023
Evaluation of methods for assigning causes of death from verbal autopsies in India.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Determining causes of death through an abridged verbal autopsy tool: a pilot test conducted among vulnerable communities in Kolkata, India.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Adaptive modelling approach for predicting causes of death: insights from verbal autopsy data in Tanzania.International health · 2026Article
- Computer assisted verbal autopsy: comparing large language models to physicians for assigning causes to 6939 deaths in Sierra Leone from 2019-2022.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Unified Mobile App for Streamlining Verbal Autopsy and Cause of Death Assignment in India: Design and Development Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Strengthening Cause of Death Statistics in Selected Districts of 3 States in India: Protocol for an Uncontrolled, Before-After, Mixed Method Study.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Verbal autopsy to assess causes of mortality among the economically productive age group in the tribal region of Melghat, central India.The Indian journal of medical research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
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.