印度死因鉴定方法的评价。

IF 2.4 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Frontiers in Big Data Pub Date : 2023-08-24 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fdata.2023.1197471
Sudhir K Benara, Saurabh Sharma, Atul Juneja, Saritha Nair, B K Gulati, Kh Jitenkumar Singh, Lucky Singh, Ved Prakash Yadav, Chalapati Rao, M Vishnu Vardhana Rao
{"title":"印度死因鉴定方法的评价。","authors":"Sudhir K Benara, Saurabh Sharma, Atul Juneja, Saritha Nair, B K Gulati, Kh Jitenkumar Singh, Lucky Singh, Ved Prakash Yadav, Chalapati Rao, M Vishnu Vardhana Rao","doi":"10.3389/fdata.2023.1197471","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Physician-coded verbal autopsy (PCVA) is the most widely used method to determine causes of death (COD) in countries where medical certification of death is low. Computer-coded verbal autopsy (CCVA), an alternative method to PCVA for assigning the COD is considered to be efficient and cost-effective. However, the performance of CCVA as compared to PCVA is yet to be established in the Indian context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated the performance of PCVA and three CCVA methods i.e., InterVA 5, InSilico, and Tariff 2.0 on verbal autopsies done using the WHO 2016 VA tool on 2,120 reference standard cases developed from five tertiary care hospitals of Delhi. PCVA methodology involved dual independent review with adjudication, where required. Metrics to assess performance were Cause Specific Mortality Fraction (CSMF), sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), CSMF Accuracy, and Kappa statistic.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In terms of the measures of the overall performance of COD assignment methods, for CSMF Accuracy, the PCVA method achieved the highest score of 0.79, followed by 0.67 for Tariff_2.0, 0.66 for Inter-VA and 0.62 for InSilicoVA. The PCVA method also achieved the highest agreement (57%) and Kappa scores (0.54). The PCVA method showed the highest sensitivity for 15 out of 20 causes of death.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study found that the PCVA method had the best performance out of all the four COD assignment methods that were tested in our study sample. In order to improve the performance of CCVA methods, multicentric studies with larger sample sizes need to be conducted using the WHO VA tool.</p>","PeriodicalId":52859,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Big Data","volume":"6 ","pages":"1197471"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10483407/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of methods for assigning causes of death from verbal autopsies in India.\",\"authors\":\"Sudhir K Benara, Saurabh Sharma, Atul Juneja, Saritha Nair, B K Gulati, Kh Jitenkumar Singh, Lucky Singh, Ved Prakash Yadav, Chalapati Rao, M Vishnu Vardhana Rao\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fdata.2023.1197471\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Physician-coded verbal autopsy (PCVA) is the most widely used method to determine causes of death (COD) in countries where medical certification of death is low. Computer-coded verbal autopsy (CCVA), an alternative method to PCVA for assigning the COD is considered to be efficient and cost-effective. However, the performance of CCVA as compared to PCVA is yet to be established in the Indian context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated the performance of PCVA and three CCVA methods i.e., InterVA 5, InSilico, and Tariff 2.0 on verbal autopsies done using the WHO 2016 VA tool on 2,120 reference standard cases developed from five tertiary care hospitals of Delhi. PCVA methodology involved dual independent review with adjudication, where required. Metrics to assess performance were Cause Specific Mortality Fraction (CSMF), sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), CSMF Accuracy, and Kappa statistic.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In terms of the measures of the overall performance of COD assignment methods, for CSMF Accuracy, the PCVA method achieved the highest score of 0.79, followed by 0.67 for Tariff_2.0, 0.66 for Inter-VA and 0.62 for InSilicoVA. The PCVA method also achieved the highest agreement (57%) and Kappa scores (0.54). The PCVA method showed the highest sensitivity for 15 out of 20 causes of death.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study found that the PCVA method had the best performance out of all the four COD assignment methods that were tested in our study sample. In order to improve the performance of CCVA methods, multicentric studies with larger sample sizes need to be conducted using the WHO VA tool.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52859,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Big Data\",\"volume\":\"6 \",\"pages\":\"1197471\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10483407/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Big Data\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2023.1197471\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Big Data","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2023.1197471","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:在死亡医学证明较低的国家,医生编码的口头尸检(PCVA)是确定死亡原因(COD)最广泛使用的方法。计算机编码的口头尸检(CCVA)是PCVA分配COD的一种替代方法,被认为是有效且具有成本效益的。然而,与PCVA相比,CCVA的性能尚未在印度背景下确定。方法:我们评估了PCVA和三种CCVA方法(即InterVA 5、InSilico和Tariff 2.0)在使用世界卫生组织2016 VA工具对德里五家三级护理医院开发的2120例参考标准病例进行的口头尸检中的表现。PCVA方法涉及双重独立审查和裁决(如需要)。评估绩效的指标包括病因特异性死亡率(CSMF)、敏感性、阳性预测值(PPV)、CSMF准确性和Kappa统计。结果:就COD分配方法的总体性能衡量而言,在CSMF准确性方面,PCVA方法获得了0.79的最高分数,其次是Tariff_2.0的0.67、Inter-VA的0.66和InSilicoVA的0.62。PCVA方法也获得了最高的一致性(57%)和Kappa评分(0.54)。PCVA方法对20种死亡原因中的15种表现出最高的敏感性。结论:我们的研究发现,在我们研究样品中测试的所有四种COD分配方法中,PCVA方法具有最好的性能。为了提高CCVA方法的性能,需要使用世界卫生组织VA工具进行样本量较大的多中心研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Evaluation of methods for assigning causes of death from verbal autopsies in India.

Evaluation of methods for assigning causes of death from verbal autopsies in India.

Evaluation of methods for assigning causes of death from verbal autopsies in India.

Background: Physician-coded verbal autopsy (PCVA) is the most widely used method to determine causes of death (COD) in countries where medical certification of death is low. Computer-coded verbal autopsy (CCVA), an alternative method to PCVA for assigning the COD is considered to be efficient and cost-effective. However, the performance of CCVA as compared to PCVA is yet to be established in the Indian context.

Methods: We evaluated the performance of PCVA and three CCVA methods i.e., InterVA 5, InSilico, and Tariff 2.0 on verbal autopsies done using the WHO 2016 VA tool on 2,120 reference standard cases developed from five tertiary care hospitals of Delhi. PCVA methodology involved dual independent review with adjudication, where required. Metrics to assess performance were Cause Specific Mortality Fraction (CSMF), sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), CSMF Accuracy, and Kappa statistic.

Results: In terms of the measures of the overall performance of COD assignment methods, for CSMF Accuracy, the PCVA method achieved the highest score of 0.79, followed by 0.67 for Tariff_2.0, 0.66 for Inter-VA and 0.62 for InSilicoVA. The PCVA method also achieved the highest agreement (57%) and Kappa scores (0.54). The PCVA method showed the highest sensitivity for 15 out of 20 causes of death.

Conclusion: Our study found that the PCVA method had the best performance out of all the four COD assignment methods that were tested in our study sample. In order to improve the performance of CCVA methods, multicentric studies with larger sample sizes need to be conducted using the WHO VA tool.

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
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.20%
发文量
122
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信