Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Language:

Dates

Publication Date Range:

to

Document Data

Title:

Document Type:

Library

Collection:

Series:

People

Author:

Help
Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Help
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

How much do the physician review and InterVA model agree in determining causes of death? a comparative analysis of deaths in rural Ethiopia

Filetype[PDF-848.70 KB]


  • English
    • Details Supporting Files You May Also Like

    Details:

    • Alternative Title:
      BMC Public Health
    • Personal Author:
    • Description:
      Background

      Despite it is costly, slow and non-reproducible process, physician review (PR) is a commonly used method to interpret verbal autopsy data. However, there is a growing interest to adapt a new automated and internally consistent method called InterVA. This study evaluated the level of agreement in determining causes of death between PR and the InterVA model.

      Methods

      Verbal autopsy data for 434 cases collected between September 2009 and November 2012, were interpreted using both PR and the InterVA model. Cohen’s kappa statistic (κ) was used to compare the level of chance corrected case-by-case agreement in the diagnosis reached by the PR and InterVA model.

      Results

      Both methods gave comparable cause specific mortality fractions of communicable diseases (36.6 % by PR and 36.2 % by the model), non-communicable diseases (31.1 % by PR and 38.2 % by the model) and accidents/injuries (12.9 % by PR and 10.1 % by the model). The level of case-by-case chance corrected concordance between the two methods was 0.33 (95 % CI for κ = 0.29–0.34). The highest and lowest agreements were seen for accidents/injuries and non-communicable diseases; with κ = 0.75 and κ = 0.37, respectively.

      Conclusion

      If the InterVA were used in place of the existing PR process, the overall diagnosis would be fairly similar. The methods had better agreement in important public health diseases like; TB, perinatal causes, and pneumonia/sepsis; and lower in cardiovascular diseases and neoplasms. Therefore, both methods need to be validated against a gold-standard diagnosis of death.

      Electronic supplementary material

      The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2032-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

    • Subjects:
    • Source:
      BMC Public Health. 15.
    • Pubmed ID:
      26173990
    • Pubmed Central ID:
      PMC4503295
    • Document Type:
      Journal Article
    • Funding:
      5U22/PS022179_10/PS/NCHHSTP CDC HHS/United States
    • Place as Subject:
      Ethiopia
    • Collection(s):
    • Main Document Checksum:
    • Download URL:
    • File Type:

    You May Also Like

    Checkout today's featured content at stacks.cdc.gov