ArticleBMJ global health2026
Determining causes of death through an abridged verbal autopsy tool: a pilot test conducted among vulnerable communities in Kolkata, India.
Article in BMJ global health, 2026. 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUsers often regard the 2022 WHO verbal autopsy (VA) instrument as lengthy and time-consuming to implement, emphasising the need for a more concise and practical tool, particularly for use in unstable or resource-limited settings. This study aimed to develop, pilot test and validate an abridged version of the WHO VA instrument capable of identifying probable causes of neonatal (0-27 days), child (1 month-11 years) and adult (12-49 years) deaths in vulnerable populations.
methodsAn abridged VA instrument based on the expert algorithm method was developed and applied to deaths recorded between 2021 and 2022 in three tertiary general hospitals and one tertiary paediatric hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal. VA interviews were conducted between July 2024 and January 2025. Causes of death were assigned using two approaches: (1) underlying medical record diagnoses and (2) a hierarchical computer-based VA algorithm. Diagnostic metrics were used to validate algorithmic causes against medical diagnoses.
resultsAmong 270 deaths (90 per age group), 95.5% yielded a VA diagnosis. Among neonates, the leading causes were sepsis (34.4%: 83.8% VA sensitivity, 94.9% VA specificity), IPRE (25.6%: 69.6%, 97.0%) and pneumonia (16.7%: 100%, 98.7%). Among children, the two most common medical diagnoses were pneumonia (53.3%: 100%, 50%) and other infections including sepsis without a known source (25.6%: 21.7%, 98.5%). Among adults, the two most common medical diagnostic categories were acute febrile illness (38.5%: 80.9%, 98.6%) and cardiovascular diseases (38.5%: 100%, 98.6%). The accuracy of the new VA instrument compared with the medical diagnosis was 81.1% for neonates, 71.1% for children and 87.8% for adults, with an overall accuracy of 80%.
conclusionThe abridged VA instrument demonstrated satisfactory accuracy in identifying the probable causes of death across all age groups in the study populations. This instrument holds potential for enhancing cause-of-death reporting in resource-limited settings.
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.