4.3 Article

Validity of verbal autopsy procedures for determining cause of death in Tanzania

Journal

TROPICAL MEDICINE & INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
Volume 11, Issue 5, Pages 681-696

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2006.01603.x

Keywords

cause of death; autopsy/methods; epidemiological measurements; epidemiological methods; vital statistics; child mortality

Funding

  1. PHS HHS [P10462-109/9903GLOB-] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To validate verbal autopsy (VA) procedures for use in sample vital registration. Verbal autopsy is an important method for deriving cause-specific mortality estimates where disease burdens are greatest and routine cause-specific mortality data do not exist. Methods: Verbal autopsies and medical records (MR) were collected for 3123 deaths in the perinatal/neonatal period, post-neonatal < 5 age group, and for ages of 5 years and over in Tanzania. Causes of death were assigned by physician panels using the International Classification of Disease, revision 10. Validity was measured by: cause-specific mortality fractions (CSMF); sensitivity; specificity and positive predictive value. Medical record diagnoses were scored for degree of uncertainty, and sensitivity and specificity adjusted. Criteria for evaluating VA performance in generating true proportional mortality were applied. Results: Verbal autopsy produced accurate CSMFs for nine causes in different age groups: birth asphyxia; intrauterine complications; pneumonia; HIV/AIDS; malaria (adults); tuberculosis; cerebrovascular diseases; injuries and direct maternal causes. Results for 20 other causes approached the threshold for good performance. Conclusions: Verbal autopsy reliably estimated CSMFs for diseases of public health importance in all age groups. Further validation is needed to assess reasons for lack of positive results for some conditions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available