Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42100554›Full record

ArticleAnnual review of statistics and its application2025

Excess Mortality Estimation.

Jon Wakefield, Victoria Knutson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annual review of statistics and its application, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jon WakefieldDepartment of Statistics, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Victoria KnutsonDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.

Funding

Bayesian Mortality Estimation from Disparate Data SourcesR01HD112421 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JONATHAN C WAKEFIELD · 2023 to 2026
$1.3M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD112421
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Estimating the mortality associated with a specific mortality crisis event (for example, a pandemic, natural disaster or conflict) is clearly an important public health undertaking. In many situations, deaths may be directly or indirectly attributable to the mortality crisis event, and both contributions may be of interest. The totality of the mortality impact on the population (direct and indirect deaths) includes the knock-on effects of the event, such as a breakdown of the health care system, or increased mortality due to shortages of resources. Unfortunately, estimating the deaths directly attributable to the event will frequently be problematic. Hence, the excess mortality, defined as the difference between the observed mortality and that which would have occurred in the absence of the crisis event, is an estimation target. If the region of interest contains a functioning vital registration system, so that the mortality is fully observed and reliable, then the only modeling required is to produce the expected deaths counts, but this is a non-trivial exercise. In low- and middle-income countries it is common for there to be incomplete (or non-existent) mortality data, and one must then use additional data and/or modeling, including predicting mortality using auxiliary variables. We describe and review each of these aspects, give examples of excess mortality studies, and provide a case study on excess mortality across states of the United States, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Indexed as

Bayesian hierarchical modelsConflictCOVID-19Expected counterfactual mortalityPandemicsVital registration

Identifiers

PMID42100554
PMCPMC13148348

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.