ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2025
[Cause of death statistics-how to avoid misinterpretation of mortality data].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patients potentially in need for palliative care in Germany-A regional small-area estimation based on death registry data.Research in health services & regions · 2025Article
- Lifetime prevalence of cancer in Germany between 2010 and 2019: An analysis based on aggregated data.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
National mortality registers provide important data for monitoring population health. Analyses of cardiovascular mortality in particular-and especially mortality from coronary heart disease-are frequently the basis for conclusions about the quality of healthcare and prevention. To be able to interpret disease-specific mortality differences between countries and changes in mortality over time, it is necessary to know the basics of monocausal cause-of-death statistics and the associated limitations in comparative statements.Conclusions from disease-specific mortality data can be problematic due to the highly subjective selection of diseases that are entered on a death certificate after a post-mortem examination. In death certification, unawareness of the different "roles" of specific diseases-known at the time of death-within the causal chain leading to death can result in incomplete death certificates as a data basis for mortality statistics. Comparisons of disease-specific mortality rates are difficult due to different proportions of non-informative-including unknown-causes of death and due to country-specific preferences for which diseases are recorded on a death certificate-especially in the prevalence of multimorbidity. A population's morbidity is therefore only reflected to a limited extent by mortality rates. Conceptual ambiguities with regard to the concepts of lethality and mortality when describing mortality rates can also lead to erroneous conclusions.Training of medical staff on how to complete a death certificate and the introduction of an electronic death certificate can improve the quality of mortality data. Irrespective of this, knowing potential pitfalls when analyzing mortality data will improve the quality of health reporting.
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.