SwePub
Sök i LIBRIS databas

  Utökad sökning

onr:"swepub:oai:DiVA.org:umu-86006"
 

Sökning: onr:"swepub:oai:DiVA.org:umu-86006" > Comparison of physi...

LIBRIS Formathandbok  (Information om MARC21)
FältnamnIndikatorerMetadata
00004758naa a2200589 4500
001oai:DiVA.org:umu-86006
003SwePub
008140214s2014 | |||||||||||000 ||eng|
0247 a https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-860062 URI
0247 a https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-12-222 DOI
040 a (SwePub)umu
041 a engb eng
042 9 SwePub
072 7a ref2 swepub-contenttype
072 7a art2 swepub-publicationtype
1001 a Leitao, Jordana4 aut
2451 0a Comparison of physician-certified verbal autopsy with computer-coded verbal autopsy for cause of death assignment in hospitalized patients in low- and middle-income countries :b systematic review
264 c 2014-02-04
264 1b BioMed Central,c 2014
338 a electronic2 rdacarrier
520 a BACKGROUND: Computer-coded verbal autopsy (CCVA) methods to assign causes of death (CODs) for medically unattended deaths have been proposed as an alternative to physician-certified verbal autopsy (PCVA). We conducted a systematic review of 19 published comparison studies (from 684 evaluated), most of which used hospital-based deaths as the reference standard. We assessed the performance of PCVA and five CCVA methods: Random Forest, Tariff, InterVA, King-Lu, and Simplified Symptom Pattern.METHODS: The reviewed studies assessed methods' performance through various metrics: sensitivity, specificity, and chance-corrected concordance for coding individual deaths, and cause-specific mortality fraction (CSMF) error and CSMF accuracy at the population level. These results were summarized into means, medians, and ranges.RESULTS: The 19 studies ranged from 200 to 50,000 deaths per study (total over 116,000 deaths). Sensitivity of PCVA versus hospital-assigned COD varied widely by cause, but showed consistently high specificity. PCVA and CCVA methods had an overall chance-corrected concordance of about 50% or lower, across all ages and CODs. At the population level, the relative CSMF error between PCVA and hospital-based deaths indicated good performance for most CODs. Random Forest had the best CSMF accuracy performance, followed closely by PCVA and the other CCVA methods, but with lower values for InterVA-3.CONCLUSIONS: There is no single best-performing coding method for verbal autopsies across various studies and metrics. There is little current justification for CCVA to replace PCVA, particularly as physician diagnosis remains the worldwide standard for clinical diagnosis on live patients. Further assessments and large accessible datasets on which to train and test combinations of methods are required, particularly for rural deaths without medical attention.
650 7a MEDICIN OCH HÄLSOVETENSKAPx Hälsovetenskapx Folkhälsovetenskap, global hälsa, socialmedicin och epidemiologi0 (SwePub)303022 hsv//swe
650 7a MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCESx Health Sciencesx Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology0 (SwePub)303022 hsv//eng
653 a Causes of death
653 a Computer-coded verbal autopsy
653 a InterVA
653 a King and Lu
653 a Physician-certified verbal autopsy
653 a Random forest
653 a Simplified symptom pattern
653 a Tariff
653 a Validity
653 a Verbal autopsy
7001 a Desai, Nikita4 aut
7001 a Aleksandrowicz, Lukasz4 aut
7001 a Byass, Peteru Umeå universitet,Epidemiologi och global hälsa,Umeå Centre for Global Health Research, Umeå University4 aut0 (Swepub:umu)peby0002
7001 a Miasnikof, Pierre4 aut
7001 a Tollman, Stephenu Umeå universitet,Epidemiologi och global hälsa,Umeå Centre for Global Health Research, Umeå University, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa and International Network for the Demographic Evaluation of Populations and Their Health (INDEPTH) Network, Accra, Ghana4 aut0 (Swepub:umu)stto0004
7001 a Alam, Dewan4 aut
7001 a Lu, Ying4 aut
7001 a Rathi, Suresh Kumar4 aut
7001 a Singh, Abhishek4 aut
7001 a Suraweera, Wilson4 aut
7001 a Ram, Faujdar4 aut
7001 a Jha, Prabhat4 aut
7102 a Umeå universitetb Epidemiologi och global hälsa4 org
7730 t BMC Medicined : BioMed Centralg 12:1, s. 22-q 12:1<22-x 1741-7015
8564 u https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-12-22y Fulltext
8564 u https://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:696590/FULLTEXT01.pdfx primaryx Raw objecty fulltext:print
8564 u https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1741-7015-12-22
8564 8u https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-86006
8564 8u https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-12-22

Hitta via bibliotek

Till lärosätets databas

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy