南非计算机编码死因推断方法与医生死因推断访谈编码之间的一致性。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Global Health Action Pub Date : 2023-12-31 Epub Date: 2023-12-01 DOI:10.1080/16549716.2023.2285105
Pam Groenewald, Jason Thomas, Samuel J Clark, Diane Morof, Jané D Joubert, Chodziwadziwa Kabudula, Zehang Li, Debbie Bradshaw
{"title":"南非计算机编码死因推断方法与医生死因推断访谈编码之间的一致性。","authors":"Pam Groenewald, Jason Thomas, Samuel J Clark, Diane Morof, Jané D Joubert, Chodziwadziwa Kabudula, Zehang Li, Debbie Bradshaw","doi":"10.1080/16549716.2023.2285105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The South African national cause of death validation (NCODV 2017/18) project collected a national sample of verbal autopsies (VA) with cause of death (COD) assignment by physician-coded VA (PCVA) and computer-coded VA (CCVA).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The performance of three CCVA algorithms (InterVA-5, InSilicoVA and Tariff 2.0) in assigning a COD was compared with PCVA (reference standard).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seven performance metrics assessed individual and population level agreement of COD assignment by age, sex and place of death subgroups. Positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, overall agreement, kappa, and chance corrected concordance (CCC) assessed individual level agreement. Cause-specific mortality fraction (CSMF) accuracy and Spearman's rank correlation assessed population level agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 5386 VA records were analysed. PCVA and CCVAs all identified HIV/AIDS as the leading COD. CCVA PPV and sensitivity, based on confidence intervals, were comparable except for HIV/AIDS, TB, maternal, diabetes mellitus, other cancers, and some injuries. CCVAs performed well for identifying perinatal deaths, road traffic accidents, suicide and homicide but poorly for pneumonia, other infectious diseases and renal failure. Overall agreement between CCVAs and PCVA for the top single cause (48.2-51.6) indicated comparable weak agreement between methods. Overall agreement, for the top three causes showed moderate agreement for InterVA (70.9) and InSilicoVA (73.8). Agreement based on kappa (-0.05-0.49)and CCC (0.06-0.43) was weak to none for all algorithms and groups. CCVAs had moderate to strong agreement for CSMF accuracy, with InterVA-5 highest for neonates (0.90), Tariff 2.0 highest for adults (0.89) and males (0.84), and InSilicoVA highest for females (0.88), elders (0.83) and out-of-facility deaths (0.85). Rank correlation indicated moderate agreement for adults (0.75-0.79).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Whilst CCVAs identified HIV/AIDS as the leading COD, consistent with PCVA, there is scope for improving the algorithms for use in South Africa.</p>","PeriodicalId":49197,"journal":{"name":"Global Health Action","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10795603/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Agreement between cause of death assignment by computer-coded verbal autopsy methods and physician coding of verbal autopsy interviews in South Africa.\",\"authors\":\"Pam Groenewald, Jason Thomas, Samuel J Clark, Diane Morof, Jané D Joubert, Chodziwadziwa Kabudula, Zehang Li, Debbie Bradshaw\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/16549716.2023.2285105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The South African national cause of death validation (NCODV 2017/18) project collected a national sample of verbal autopsies (VA) with cause of death (COD) assignment by physician-coded VA (PCVA) and computer-coded VA (CCVA).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The performance of three CCVA algorithms (InterVA-5, InSilicoVA and Tariff 2.0) in assigning a COD was compared with PCVA (reference standard).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seven performance metrics assessed individual and population level agreement of COD assignment by age, sex and place of death subgroups. Positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, overall agreement, kappa, and chance corrected concordance (CCC) assessed individual level agreement. Cause-specific mortality fraction (CSMF) accuracy and Spearman's rank correlation assessed population level agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 5386 VA records were analysed. PCVA and CCVAs all identified HIV/AIDS as the leading COD. CCVA PPV and sensitivity, based on confidence intervals, were comparable except for HIV/AIDS, TB, maternal, diabetes mellitus, other cancers, and some injuries. CCVAs performed well for identifying perinatal deaths, road traffic accidents, suicide and homicide but poorly for pneumonia, other infectious diseases and renal failure. Overall agreement between CCVAs and PCVA for the top single cause (48.2-51.6) indicated comparable weak agreement between methods. Overall agreement, for the top three causes showed moderate agreement for InterVA (70.9) and InSilicoVA (73.8). Agreement based on kappa (-0.05-0.49)and CCC (0.06-0.43) was weak to none for all algorithms and groups. CCVAs had moderate to strong agreement for CSMF accuracy, with InterVA-5 highest for neonates (0.90), Tariff 2.0 highest for adults (0.89) and males (0.84), and InSilicoVA highest for females (0.88), elders (0.83) and out-of-facility deaths (0.85). Rank correlation indicated moderate agreement for adults (0.75-0.79).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Whilst CCVAs identified HIV/AIDS as the leading COD, consistent with PCVA, there is scope for improving the algorithms for use in South Africa.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49197,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Health Action\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10795603/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Health Action\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2023.2285105\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Health Action","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2023.2285105","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:南非国家死因验证(NCODV 2017/18)项目收集了死因(COD)由医生编码VA (PCVA)和计算机编码VA (CCVA)指定的死因(VA)全国样本。目的:比较三种CCVA算法(InterVA-5、InSilicoVA和Tariff 2.0)与PCVA(参考标准)在COD分配中的性能。方法:以年龄、性别和死亡地点亚组为分类,采用7个绩效指标评估个体和人群对COD分配的一致性。阳性预测值(PPV)、敏感性、总体一致性、kappa和机会校正一致性(CCC)评估个体水平一致性。病因特异性死亡率分数(CSMF)准确性和Spearman等级相关性评估人群水平一致性。结果:共分析了5386例VA记录。PCVA和ccva都将HIV/AIDS确定为主要的COD。CCVA PPV和敏感性,基于置信区间,除了艾滋病毒/艾滋病,结核病,孕产妇,糖尿病,其他癌症和一些伤害外,具有可比性。CCVAs在识别围产期死亡、道路交通事故、自杀和他杀方面表现良好,但在识别肺炎、其他传染病和肾衰竭方面表现不佳。CCVAs和PCVA对最主要单一原因的总体一致性(48.2-51.6)表明两种方法之间的一致性比较弱。对于前三个原因的总体一致性显示,InterVA(70.9)和InSilicoVA(73.8)的一致性中等。基于kappa(-0.05-0.49)和CCC(0.06-0.43)的一致性在所有算法和分组中弱至零。CCVAs对CSMF的准确性具有中等到高度的一致性,新生儿的InterVA-5最高(0.90),成人和男性的Tariff - 2.0最高(0.89),InSilicoVA最高(0.88),老年人(0.83)和设施外死亡(0.85)。等级相关显示成人的中度一致(0.75-0.79)。结论:虽然CCVAs将艾滋病毒/艾滋病确定为主要的COD,与PCVA一致,但在南非使用的算法仍有改进的余地。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Agreement between cause of death assignment by computer-coded verbal autopsy methods and physician coding of verbal autopsy interviews in South Africa.

Background: The South African national cause of death validation (NCODV 2017/18) project collected a national sample of verbal autopsies (VA) with cause of death (COD) assignment by physician-coded VA (PCVA) and computer-coded VA (CCVA).

Objective: The performance of three CCVA algorithms (InterVA-5, InSilicoVA and Tariff 2.0) in assigning a COD was compared with PCVA (reference standard).

Methods: Seven performance metrics assessed individual and population level agreement of COD assignment by age, sex and place of death subgroups. Positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, overall agreement, kappa, and chance corrected concordance (CCC) assessed individual level agreement. Cause-specific mortality fraction (CSMF) accuracy and Spearman's rank correlation assessed population level agreement.

Results: A total of 5386 VA records were analysed. PCVA and CCVAs all identified HIV/AIDS as the leading COD. CCVA PPV and sensitivity, based on confidence intervals, were comparable except for HIV/AIDS, TB, maternal, diabetes mellitus, other cancers, and some injuries. CCVAs performed well for identifying perinatal deaths, road traffic accidents, suicide and homicide but poorly for pneumonia, other infectious diseases and renal failure. Overall agreement between CCVAs and PCVA for the top single cause (48.2-51.6) indicated comparable weak agreement between methods. Overall agreement, for the top three causes showed moderate agreement for InterVA (70.9) and InSilicoVA (73.8). Agreement based on kappa (-0.05-0.49)and CCC (0.06-0.43) was weak to none for all algorithms and groups. CCVAs had moderate to strong agreement for CSMF accuracy, with InterVA-5 highest for neonates (0.90), Tariff 2.0 highest for adults (0.89) and males (0.84), and InSilicoVA highest for females (0.88), elders (0.83) and out-of-facility deaths (0.85). Rank correlation indicated moderate agreement for adults (0.75-0.79).

Conclusions: Whilst CCVAs identified HIV/AIDS as the leading COD, consistent with PCVA, there is scope for improving the algorithms for use in South Africa.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Global Health Action
Global Health Action PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
108
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Health Action is an international peer-reviewed Open Access journal affiliated with the Unit of Epidemiology and Global Health, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine at Umeå University, Sweden. The Unit hosts the Umeå International School of Public Health and the Umeå Centre for Global Health Research. Vision: Our vision is to be a leading journal in the global health field, narrowing health information gaps and contributing to the implementation of policies and actions that lead to improved global health. Aim: The widening gap between the winners and losers of globalisation presents major public health challenges. To meet these challenges, it is crucial to generate new knowledge and evidence in the field and in settings where the evidence is lacking, as well as to bridge the gaps between existing knowledge and implementation of relevant findings. Thus, the aim of Global Health Action is to contribute to fuelling a more concrete, hands-on approach to addressing global health challenges. Manuscripts suggesting strategies for practical interventions and research implementations where none already exist are specifically welcomed. Further, the journal encourages articles from low- and middle-income countries, while also welcoming articles originated from South-South and South-North collaborations. All articles are expected to address a global agenda and include a strong implementation or policy component.
期刊最新文献
Prevalence and associated factors for poor mental health among young migrants in Sweden: a cross-sectional study. The effectiveness of rural community health workers in improving health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. Adaptation and validation of the Children's Surgical Assessment Tool for Rwandan district hospitals. Electronic health record and primary care physician self-reported quality of care: a multilevel study in China. Recruiting hard-to-reach populations via respondent driven sampling for mobile phone surveys in Colombia: a qualitative study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1