ArticleCureus2025
The Final Diagnosis: Evaluating Errors in Cause-of-Death Reporting.
Article in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate cause of death (COD) certification is essential for public health planning and mortality statistics. Despite legal frameworks and WHO guidelines, documentation errors persist, particularly in North Indian hospitals, affecting data reliability and policy decisions. Aim: This study aims to assess the accuracy, completeness, and common errors in COD certification, identify factors contributing to documentation deficiencies, and propose measures for improvement.
methodsA retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted at Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Institute of Medical Excellence (Medical College & Associated Hospital, SMVDNSH), a tertiary care hospital in North India, which is also a centre of excellence and teaching institute, analysing 1,147 COD certificates issued between March 2023 and March 2024. Certificates were assessed for accuracy based on ICD guidelines, and autopsy reports were reviewed to identify discrepancies. Errors were categorized into major and minor types and analyzed across hospital departments and certifier experience levels. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 17.
resultOnly 119 (10.38%) of the certificates were correctly filled. Major errors were found in 858 (74.80%) certificates, while minor errors were present in 810 (70.66%) certificates. A discrepancy between clinical and autopsy COD was observed in 112 (9.77%) of certificates. During Root cause analysis from the users' perspective, it was found that out of 125 junior residents, 90 (72%) had made mistakes while filling the certificates, which reduced to 35 (28%) post-training. The highest errors occurred in the emergency (619; 54%), and 321 (28%) certificates were from the ICU.
conclusionSignificant deficiencies in COD documentation highlight the need for targeted training, stricter adherence to ICD guidelines, and regular audits. Addressing these issues will enhance the accuracy of mortality data and improve public health planning.
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.