ArticlePopulation health metrics2023
Collider and reporting biases involved in the analyses of cause of death associations in death certificates: an illustration with cancer and suicide.
Article in Population health metrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Heterogeneity in proportional cardiovascular co-listing on cancer death certificates in the United States: a national multiple cause-of-death analysis, 1999-2020.Cardio-oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Trend analysis and epidemiological forecasting of colorectal Cancer mortality among reproductive-age women in sub-Saharan Africa.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
- Analysis of Multiple Causes of Death: A Review of Methods and Practices.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMortality data obtained from death certificates have been studied to explore causal associations between diseases. However, these analyses are subject to collider and reporting biases (selection and information biases, respectively). We aimed to assess to what extent associations of causes of death estimated from individual mortality data can be extrapolated as associations of disease states in the general population.
methodsWe used a multistate model to generate populations of individuals and simulate their health states up to death from national health statistics and artificially replicate collider bias. Associations between health states can then be estimated from such simulated deaths by logistic regression and the magnitude of collider bias assessed. Reporting bias can be approximated by comparing the estimates obtained from the observed death certificates (subject to collider and reporting biases) with those obtained from the simulated deaths (subject to collider bias only). As an illustrative example, we estimated the association between cancer and suicide in French death certificates and found that cancer was negatively associated with suicide. Collider bias, due to conditioning inclusion in the study population on death, increasingly downwarded the associations with cancer site lethality. Reporting bias was much stronger than collider bias and depended on the cancer site, but not prognosis.
resultsThe magnitude of the biases ranged from 1.7 to 9.3 for collider bias, and from 4.7 to 64 for reporting bias.
conclusionsThese results argue for an assessment of the magnitude of both collider and reporting biases before performing analyses of cause of death associations exclusively from mortality data. If these biases cannot be corrected, results from these analyses should not be extrapolated to the general population.
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.