What can we conclude from death registration? Improved methods for evaluating completeness.

<h4>Background</h4>One of the fundamental building blocks for determining the burden of disease in populations is to reliably measure the level and pattern of mortality by age and sex. Where well-functioning registration systems exist, this task is relatively straightforward. Results fro...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Christopher J L Murray, Julie Knoll Rajaratnam, Jacob Marcus, Thomas Laakso, Alan D Lopez
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2010
Materias:	Medicine R
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/515e9c4be18546ff9849f0cc7efc4636
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:515e9c4be18546ff9849f0cc7efc4636
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:515e9c4be18546ff9849f0cc7efc46362021-11-25T05:37:44ZWhat can we conclude from death registration? Improved methods for evaluating completeness.1549-12771549-167610.1371/journal.pmed.1000262https://doaj.org/article/515e9c4be18546ff9849f0cc7efc46362010-04-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/20405002/pdf/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1549-1277https://doaj.org/toc/1549-1676<h4>Background</h4>One of the fundamental building blocks for determining the burden of disease in populations is to reliably measure the level and pattern of mortality by age and sex. Where well-functioning registration systems exist, this task is relatively straightforward. Results from many civil registration systems, however, remain uncertain because of a lack of confidence in the completeness of death registration. Incomplete registration systems mean not all deaths are counted, and resulting estimates of death rates for the population are then underestimated. Death distribution methods (DDMs) are a suite of demographic methods that attempt to estimate the fraction of deaths that are registered and counted by the civil registration system. Although widely applied and used, the methods have at least three types of limitations. First, a wide range of variants of these methods has been applied in practice with little scientific literature to guide their selection. Second, the methods have not been extensively validated in real population conditions where violations of the assumptions of the methods most certainly occur. Third, DDMs do not generate uncertainty intervals.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>In this paper, we systematically evaluate the performance of 234 variants of DDM methods in three different validation environments where we know or have strong beliefs about the true level of completeness of death registration. Using these datasets, we identify three variants of the DDMs that generally perform the best. We also find that even these improved methods yield uncertainty intervals of roughly +/- one-quarter of the estimate. Finally, we demonstrate the application of the optimal variants in eight countries.<h4>Conclusions</h4>There continues to be a role for partial vital registration data in measuring adult mortality levels and trends, but such results should only be interpreted alongside all other data sources on adult mortality and the uncertainty of the resulting levels, trends, and age-patterns of adult death considered. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.Christopher J L MurrayJulie Knoll RajaratnamJacob MarcusThomas LaaksoAlan D LopezPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRENPLoS Medicine, Vol 7, Iss 4, p e1000262 (2010)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R
spellingShingle	Medicine R Christopher J L Murray Julie Knoll Rajaratnam Jacob Marcus Thomas Laakso Alan D Lopez What can we conclude from death registration? Improved methods for evaluating completeness.
description	<h4>Background</h4>One of the fundamental building blocks for determining the burden of disease in populations is to reliably measure the level and pattern of mortality by age and sex. Where well-functioning registration systems exist, this task is relatively straightforward. Results from many civil registration systems, however, remain uncertain because of a lack of confidence in the completeness of death registration. Incomplete registration systems mean not all deaths are counted, and resulting estimates of death rates for the population are then underestimated. Death distribution methods (DDMs) are a suite of demographic methods that attempt to estimate the fraction of deaths that are registered and counted by the civil registration system. Although widely applied and used, the methods have at least three types of limitations. First, a wide range of variants of these methods has been applied in practice with little scientific literature to guide their selection. Second, the methods have not been extensively validated in real population conditions where violations of the assumptions of the methods most certainly occur. Third, DDMs do not generate uncertainty intervals.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>In this paper, we systematically evaluate the performance of 234 variants of DDM methods in three different validation environments where we know or have strong beliefs about the true level of completeness of death registration. Using these datasets, we identify three variants of the DDMs that generally perform the best. We also find that even these improved methods yield uncertainty intervals of roughly +/- one-quarter of the estimate. Finally, we demonstrate the application of the optimal variants in eight countries.<h4>Conclusions</h4>There continues to be a role for partial vital registration data in measuring adult mortality levels and trends, but such results should only be interpreted alongside all other data sources on adult mortality and the uncertainty of the resulting levels, trends, and age-patterns of adult death considered. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.
format	article
author	Christopher J L Murray Julie Knoll Rajaratnam Jacob Marcus Thomas Laakso Alan D Lopez
author_facet	Christopher J L Murray Julie Knoll Rajaratnam Jacob Marcus Thomas Laakso Alan D Lopez
author_sort	Christopher J L Murray
title	What can we conclude from death registration? Improved methods for evaluating completeness.
title_short	What can we conclude from death registration? Improved methods for evaluating completeness.
title_full	What can we conclude from death registration? Improved methods for evaluating completeness.
title_fullStr	What can we conclude from death registration? Improved methods for evaluating completeness.
title_full_unstemmed	What can we conclude from death registration? Improved methods for evaluating completeness.
title_sort	what can we conclude from death registration? improved methods for evaluating completeness.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2010
url	https://doaj.org/article/515e9c4be18546ff9849f0cc7efc4636
work_keys_str_mv	AT christopherjlmurray whatcanweconcludefromdeathregistrationimprovedmethodsforevaluatingcompleteness AT julieknollrajaratnam whatcanweconcludefromdeathregistrationimprovedmethodsforevaluatingcompleteness AT jacobmarcus whatcanweconcludefromdeathregistrationimprovedmethodsforevaluatingcompleteness AT thomaslaakso whatcanweconcludefromdeathregistrationimprovedmethodsforevaluatingcompleteness AT alandlopez whatcanweconcludefromdeathregistrationimprovedmethodsforevaluatingcompleteness
_version_	1718414577347067904

What can we conclude from death registration? Improved methods for evaluating completeness.

Ejemplares similares