Suppr超能文献

人群健康指标研究联盟金标准死因推断数据在一般死因推断方法中的实用性。

Usefulness of the Population Health Metrics Research Consortium gold standard verbal autopsy data for general verbal autopsy methods.

机构信息

WHO Collaborating Centre for Verbal Autopsy, Umeå Centre for Global Health Research, Umeå University, 90187 Umeå, Sweden.

出版信息

BMC Med. 2014 Feb 4;12:23. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-12-23.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Verbal Autopsy (VA) is widely viewed as the only immediate strategy for registering cause of death in much of Africa and Asia, where routine physician certification of deaths is not widely practiced. VA involves a lay interview with family or friends after a death, to record essential details of the circumstances. These data can then be processed automatically to arrive at standardized cause of death information.

METHODS

The Population Health Metrics Research Consortium (PHMRC) undertook a study at six tertiary hospitals in low- and middle-income countries which documented over 12,000 deaths clinically and subsequently undertook VA interviews. This dataset, now in the public domain, was compared with the WHO 2012 VA standard and the InterVA-4 interpretative model.

RESULTS

The PHMRC data covered 70% of the WHO 2012 VA input indicators, and categorized cause of death according to PHMRC definitions. After eliminating some problematic or incomplete records, 11,984 VAs were compared. Some of the PHMRC cause definitions, such as 'preterm delivery', differed substantially from the International Classification of Diseases, version 10 equivalent. There were some appreciable inconsistencies between the hospital and VA data, including 20% of the hospital maternal deaths being described as non-pregnant in the VA data. A high proportion of VA cases (66%) reported respiratory symptoms, but only 18% of assigned hospital causes were respiratory-related. Despite these issues, the concordance correlation coefficient between hospital and InterVA-4 cause of death categories was 0.61.

CONCLUSIONS

The PHMRC dataset is a valuable reference source for VA methods, but has to be interpreted with care. Inherently inconsistent cases should not be included when using these data to build other VA models. Conversely, models built from these data should be independently evaluated. It is important to distinguish between the internal and external validity of VA models. The effects of using tertiary hospital data, rather than the more usual application of VA to all-community deaths, are hard to evaluate. However, it would still be of value for VA method development to have further studies of population-based post-mortem examinations.

摘要

背景

在非洲和亚洲的大部分地区,由于常规的医生对死亡的认证并未广泛实施,因此口述尸检(VA)被广泛认为是唯一可立即记录死因的策略。VA 涉及在死亡后与家属或朋友进行的非专业访谈,以记录有关情况的基本详细信息。然后,可以对这些数据进行自动处理,以得出标准化的死因信息。

方法

人口健康指标研究联盟(PHMRC)在六个中低收入国家的三级医院进行了一项研究,该研究记录了 12,000 多例临床死亡,并随后进行了 VA 访谈。这个现在已公开的数据集中,与世界卫生组织(WHO)2012 年 VA 标准和 InterVA-4 解释模型进行了比较。

结果

PHMRC 数据涵盖了 WHO 2012 年 VA 输入指标的 70%,并根据 PHMRC 定义对死因进行了分类。在消除了一些有问题或不完整的记录后,比较了 11,984 次 VA。一些 PHMRC 病因定义,例如“早产”,与国际疾病分类,第 10 版等效物有很大不同。医院和 VA 数据之间存在一些明显的不一致,包括 20%的医院孕产妇死亡在 VA 数据中被描述为非孕妇。VA 病例中有很大一部分(66%)报告有呼吸道症状,但分配给医院的病因中只有 18%与呼吸道有关。尽管存在这些问题,但医院和 InterVA-4 死因分类之间的一致性相关系数为 0.61。

结论

PHMRC 数据集是 VA 方法的有价值的参考源,但需要谨慎解释。在使用这些数据构建其他 VA 模型时,不应包括固有不一致的病例。相反,应独立评估使用这些数据构建的模型。区分 VA 模型的内部和外部有效性很重要。使用三级医院数据而不是通常将 VA 应用于所有社区死亡的方法来评估 VA 模型的效果是困难的。但是,进一步研究基于人群的死后检查对于 VA 方法的发展仍然具有价值。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8e0e/3912496/4c5e01e1d2b7/1741-7015-12-23-1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验