Reviewgold2022

Validation studies of verbal autopsy methods: a systematic review

Pasyodun Koralage Buddhika Mahesh · John Hart · Ajay Acharya · Hafizur Rahman Chowdhury · Rohina Joshi · Tim Adair +1 more

15 citations0/0 files storedBMC Public Health

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Insurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management Survey Methodology and Nonresponse Autopsy Techniques and Outcomes

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Verbal autopsy (VA) has emerged as an increasingly popular technique to assign cause of death in parts of the world where the majority of deaths occur without proper medical certification. The purpose of this study was to examine the key characteristics of studies that have attempted to validate VA cause of death against an established cause of death. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane-library, and Scopus electronic databases. Included studies contained 1) a VA component, 2) a validation component, and 3) original analysis or re-analysis. Characteristics of VA studies were extracted. A total of 527 studies were assessed, and 481 studies screened to give 66 studies selected for data extraction. RESULTS: Sixty-six studies were included from multiple countries. Ten studies used an existing database. Sixteen studies used the World Health Organization VA questionnaire and 5 studies used the Population Health Metrics Research Consortium VA questionnaire. Physician certification was used in 36 studies and computer coded methods were used in 14 studies. Thirty-seven studies used high level comparator data with detailed laboratory investigations. CONCLUSION: Most studies found VA to be an effective cause of death assignment method and compared VA cause of death to a high-quality established cause of death. Nonetheless, there were inconsistencies in the methodologies of the validation studies, and many used poor quality comparison cause of death data. Future VA validation studies should adhere to consistent methodological criteria so that policymakers can easily interpret the findings to select the most appropriate VA method. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42020186886.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.

References

2009The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration 2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration 2018Global, regional, and national age-sex-specific mortality for 282 causes of death in 195 countries and territories, 1980–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 2012Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement 2015A global assessment of civil registration and vital statistics systems: monitoring data quality and progress 2005Validation of verbal autopsy procedures for adult deaths in China 2006Validity of verbal autopsy procedures for determining cause of death in Tanzania 2004Verbal autopsy of 80,000 adult deaths in Tamilnadu, South India

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.