Suppr超能文献

美国官方死亡率数据中无意枪击死亡人数过多还是过少?

Too many or too few unintentional firearm deaths in official U.S. mortality data?

机构信息

Harvard Injury Control Research Center, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

出版信息

Accid Anal Prev. 2011 May;43(3):724-31. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.10.018. Epub 2010 Dec 3.

Abstract

We examined the accuracy of data on unintentional firearm fatalities in the United States. We began with data from the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) and examined every firearm death reported as an accident by any NVDRS data source--the NVDRS abstracter, the State Vital Statistics Registry (i.e., the ICD-10 Underlying Cause of Death code and manner of death from the death certificate), the medical examiner or coroner report, and the police Supplementary Homicide Report. After carefully reading the information from all sources, we then classified each case as either unintentional or intentional using NVDRS definitions. Comparing our classification with that of the NVDRS abstracter, we conclude that NVDRS data accurately report unintentional firearm deaths (sensitivity 98%; positive predictive value [PPV] 99%). We then compared our classification with that of the State Vital Statistics Registry based on the ICD-10 Underlying Cause of Death code and found great inaccuracy (sensitivity 62%; PPV 58%). Thirty-eight percent of true cases were missed and 42% of reported cases were false positives. As has been previously reported in the literature, over half of unintentional shootings that were inflicted by another person were classified as homicides, not accidents. This is a particular problem for the data on young victims. What was unexpected, however, was the opposite problem: we found many unambiguous suicides and homicides that were reported as accidents. We believe this is due to the ICD-10 coding practice of assigning injury deaths to the "accident" category when manner of death is "pending" or left blank. Finally, at the state-level, we compared our overall results for each state and year with the official National Vital Statistics System count (reported on CDC's WONDER website). We found evidence of even greater over-reporting of unintentional firearm deaths there. In answer to the question, "Are there too many or too few unintentional firearm deaths in official mortality data?" the best answer is, "Both." Many true accidents are missed, while many suicides and homicides are mistakenly reported as accidents. By contrast, the NVDRS applies a case definition for unintentional firearm deaths with consistency and accuracy.

摘要

我们检验了美国非故意性枪支致死数据的准确性。我们首先使用国家暴力死亡报告系统(NVDRS)的数据,对所有被任何 NVDRS 数据源报告为意外的枪支致死事件进行了检查——NVDRS 摘要员、州立生命统计注册处(即死亡证明中的 ICD-10 根本死因代码和死亡方式)、法医或验尸官报告以及警方补充杀人报告。在仔细阅读所有来源的信息后,我们根据 NVDRS 的定义将每个案例归类为非故意或故意。通过比较我们的分类与 NVDRS 摘要员的分类,我们得出结论,NVDRS 数据准确地报告了非故意性枪支致死事件(敏感度 98%;阳性预测值 [PPV] 99%)。然后,我们根据 ICD-10 根本死因代码将我们的分类与州立生命统计注册处的分类进行了比较,结果发现存在很大的不准确性(敏感度 62%;PPV 58%)。38%的真实案例被遗漏,42%的报告案例是假阳性。正如文献中之前报道的那样,超过一半的由他人实施的非故意枪击被归类为凶杀,而不是意外。这对年轻受害者的数据来说是一个特别的问题。然而,出乎意料的是,存在相反的问题:我们发现许多明确的自杀和凶杀被报告为意外。我们认为这是由于 ICD-10 编码实践将死因方式为“待确定”或留空的伤害致死归因于“意外”类别。最后,在州一级,我们将每个州和年份的总体结果与官方国家生命统计系统的计数(报告在 CDC 的 WONDER 网站上)进行了比较。我们发现那里存在更多非故意性枪支致死数据的过度报告的证据。对于“官方死亡率数据中是否存在太多或太少的非故意性枪支致死事件?”这个问题,最好的答案是,“两者都有”。许多真实的意外被遗漏,而许多自杀和凶杀被错误地报告为意外。相比之下,NVDRS 以一致性和准确性应用了非故意性枪支致死的病例定义。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验