ArticlePopulation health metrics2025
Effect of census-based correction of population figures on mortality rates in Germany.
Article in Population health metrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThe population figures in Germany are obtained by updating the results of the latest census with information from the statistics on birth, deaths and migration statistics. The Census 2011 in Germany corrected population figures, which have only been updated over a long period of time. The aim of this work is to show the effect of the census-based correction of the population figures on the magnitude of mortality rates in Germany 2011-2013.
methodsWe compared mortality rates (total, cancer, and cardiovascular disease) for the period 2011-2013 based on the uncorrected and Census 2011 corrected population figures. We also compared the effect of the choice of different standard populations in the age standardization of rates on the difference in uncorrected and corrected mortality rates.
resultsThere is a clear decline in age-specific cancer mortality among men aged 90 and over when using the uncorrected population figures, which is reversed as soon as the corrected population figures are used. Among women, there is hardly any difference between the uncorrected and corrected mortality rates. The correction of the population figures does not lead to a qualitatively different pattern in the mortality rates for cardiovascular diseases and myocardial infarction, but it increases the magnitude of the rates, particularly for elderly men. Standard populations with higher weights at older ages produced larger corrections in mortality rates.
conclusionsEven though the Census 2011 corrected nationwide mortality rates without age stratification differed only slightly from the uncorrected rates, there were noticeable increases in mortality, particularly in the city states of Hamburg and Berlin and in old age. Due to the particularly large error in the population figures in the older age range, an age standard that assigns lower weights at older ages should be used for age standardization of rates wherever possible.
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.