ArticleInjury epidemiology2024
Accuracy of the national violent death reporting system in identifying unintentional firearm deaths to children by children.
Article in Injury epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn assigning manner of death (MOD) for inclusion on death certificates, medical examiners and coroners do not always apply uniform criteria. Previous research indicates surveillance statistics based on death certificates, such as the National Vital Statistics System, grossly miscount unintentional firearm deaths. The National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) has taken steps to reduce variability in manner of death coding by providing uniform criteria for assigning an "abstractor manner of death" (AMD). AMD has five categories: unintentional, suicide, homicide, undetermined, and legal intervention homicide. A previous study found good accuracy of AMD coding for unintentional firearm deaths, all ages, 2003-2006, but a more recent study reported that the NVDRS undercounted self- and other-inflicted unintentional firearm deaths in which both the victim and shooter (for other-inflicted injuries) were under age 15 (2009-2018).
findingsWe replicated the recent study's sample population, identifying 924 NVDRS incidents from 2009 to 2018 in which both victim and, for other-inflicted injuries, shooter age was under 15 and AMD was homicide, suicide, unintentional or undetermined (there were no legal intervention deaths to children). We assigned a researcher-adjudicated MOD (RMD) by reviewing incident narratives. RMD was compared with AMD and with manner recorded on the death certificate. Based on RMD as the gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values positive and negative of the AMD for unintentional childhood firearm deaths were, respectively, 90%, 99%, 98% and 96%; 86% (24/28) of false negatives were coded by abstractors as homicides. By contrast, death certificate manner had relatively poor sensitivity (63%).
conclusionsIn our sample of 924 deaths, the abstractor manner of death generally agreed with researcher-adjudicated manner of death, though not perfectly, missing 10% of researcher-adjudicated unintentional deaths, mostly because abstractors coded these unintentional deaths as homicides. A sizable minority of false negatives were unintentional deaths where the narrative explicitly noted that adult negligence contributed to a child's unintentional shooting death. While AMD coding in NVDRS is good, it could be improved if NVDRS coding guidelines explicitly affirmed that potential prosecution for negligent manslaughter is not a contraindication to an AMD of unintentional, provided the firearm was not used to intentionally harm, threaten, or coerce.
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.