Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

A composite metric for assessing data on mortality and causes of death: the vital statistics performance index

  • David E Phillips1Email author,
  • Rafael Lozano1, 2,
  • Mohsen Naghavi1,
  • Charles Atkinson1,
  • Diego Gonzalez-Medina1,
  • Lene Mikkelsen3,
  • Christopher JL Murray1 and
  • Alan D Lopez4
Population Health Metrics201412:14

https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7954-12-14

Received: 16 January 2014

Accepted: 23 April 2014

Published: 14 May 2014

Abstract

Background

Timely and reliable data on causes of death are fundamental for informed decision-making in the health sector as well as public health research. An in-depth understanding of the quality of data from vital statistics (VS) is therefore indispensable for health policymakers and researchers. We propose a summary index to objectively measure the performance of VS systems in generating reliable mortality data and apply it to the comprehensive cause of death database assembled for the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2013 Study.

Methods

We created a Vital Statistics Performance Index, a composite of six dimensions of VS strength, each assessed by a separate empirical indicator. The six dimensions include: quality of cause of death reporting, quality of age and sex reporting, internal consistency, completeness of death reporting, level of cause-specific detail, and data availability/timeliness. A simulation procedure was developed to combine indicators into a single index. This index was computed for all country-years of VS in the GBD 2013 cause of death database, yielding annual estimates of overall VS system performance for 148 countries or territories.

Results

The six dimensions impacted the accuracy of data to varying extents. VS performance declines more steeply with declining simulated completeness than for any other indicator. The amount of detail in the cause list reported has a concave relationship with overall data accuracy, but is an important driver of observed VS performance. Indicators of cause of death data quality and age/sex reporting have more linear relationships with simulated VS performance, but poor cause of death reporting influences observed VS performance more strongly. VS performance is steadily improving at an average rate of 2.10% per year among the 148 countries that have available data, but only 19.0% of global deaths post-2000 occurred in countries with well-performing VS systems.

Conclusions

Objective and comparable information about the performance of VS systems and the utility of the data that they report will help to focus efforts to strengthen VS systems. Countries and the global health community alike need better intelligence about the accuracy of VS that are widely and often uncritically used in population health research and monitoring.

Keywords

MortalityCauses of deathVital statisticsCivil registrationVital registrationData qualityHealth information systems

Background

Vital statistics (VS) are tabulations of birth, marriage, divorce, and death certificates typically generated by civil registration systems. VS are usually based on legal requirements regarding the registration and certification of vital events. While the importance of civil registration for the identification of individuals is well recognized, VS are also critically important for informing public health policies and programs [1]. Although alternative sources of data exist, VS derived from national civil registration systems are the optimal source of mortality, fertility, and cause of death data because they are intended to cover the entire population, are available for subnational populations and, in principle, result from a medically certified cause of each death.

The importance of VS for public health extends beyond policy to research, program implementation, and evaluation. Good-quality VS greatly facilitate the reliable monitoring of progress with health development goals and in evaluating performance [210]. Yet there has been comparatively little focus on the monitoring and evaluation of VS strengthening activities themselves, and limited tools and techniques are available for doing so [58]. For the purposes of this analysis, a VS system is defined as any collection of agencies, institutions, and protocols established to ensure the certification, aggregation, and dissemination of VS.

But what do we mean by VS performance? In terms of its intended purpose, a well-performing VS system might be thought of as one which generates information that accurately reflects the current and past epidemiologic circumstances of its population. In other words, the performance of a VS system is the extent to which it can produce representative VS on the health, and particularly causes of death, in populations.

The few techniques that do exist for assessing performance and evaluating progress with VS systems can be broadly classified into three categories:
  1. 1.

    Expert audit: An independent consultant examines the features of a VS system according to a predetermined agenda, focusing on inputs, processes, and outputs. This is often done in person and by external experts.

     
  2. 2.

    Self-assessment: Key stakeholders in countries responsible for establishing and maintaining VS systems collectively perform a self-assessment in order to assess various aspects of inputs, processes, and/or outputs and identify system bottlenecks.

     
  3. 3.

    Empirical output assessment: VS themselves are evaluated according to a predetermined set of indicators.

     

All three approaches have also been used to examine and diagnose broader health systems, but most of the studies that focus specifically on VS systems are heavily based on expert audit and self-assessment; few use output assessment techniques [6, 916]. To our knowledge, there have been only four attempts to evaluate VS via output assessment, three of which are closely related, with the fourth focusing primarily on births [1720].

Output assessment offers many advantages over expert audit and self-assessment. Perhaps most important is that it is objective. No specific local knowledge or judgment is required to quantify problems within datasets, provided that those problems can be clearly defined. Expert audit and self-assessment, in contrast, rely on subjective observations made by the auditor(s) and depend on specialized knowledge of the specific system being evaluated. Second, empirical evaluation of data is highly reproducible, unlike expert evaluations or self-assessments which may produce differing assessments of the same system if repeated. Third, output assessment has the distinct advantage that it can be applied to evaluate VS retrospectively (to the extent that data are available). Finally, output assessment is largely costless when based on available data. On the contrary, expert audit and self-assessment must be conducted on a system by system basis, which may be both prohibitively expensive and time consuming. Objective methods for data quality evaluation can be applied with minimal cost for any number of countries simultaneously.

The traditional approach to evaluate VS is to examine completeness (percent of all births or deaths registered) or coverage (percent of the national population included in the VS system). While these are necessary, they are not sufficient to comprehensively describe VS performance. Other epidemiologic information, such as the decedent’s age, sex, and cause of death are critically important outputs of a VS system, while the quality and availability of VS data are critical to their usefulness.

Given the many different dimensions that might legitimately be viewed as contributing to the overall quality and usefulness of VS data, comparative analyses of system performance across space and time would be facilitated if they could be combined into a single indicator. Previous attempts to do so have relied on expert opinion to determine the relative importance of each dimension of VS data quality, introducing a degree of subjectivity and arbitrariness to what is otherwise an empirical approach [19]. The analytic framework presented in this paper identifies six dimensions for assessing the overall quality of VS data, and uses a simulation environment to empirically determine the relative weight of each dimension. Simulation results are applied to the database assembled for the upcoming Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013) to estimate a summary metric of VS performance for each country-year from 1980 to 2012, defined here as the Vital Statistics Performance Index (VSPI).

Methods

Data

The input database for this analysis was the cause of death database developed for GBD 2013 by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, which builds upon the previous GBD 2010 study [21, 22]. Data were gathered from all known sources of VS, including the World Health Organization (WHO) Mortality Database, the United Nations Demographic Yearbook, individual publications from national ministries of health, and other sources [22]. Each country was categorized into one of seven mutually exclusive epidemiologic regions, which were previously defined for the GBD [23]. A more complete description of the underlying database for GBD can be found elsewhere [21, 22].

Using a slightly less conservative definition of VS than the GBD, we have included in this analysis subnational VS where national VS were not available, such as in Ghana, and nationally aggregated hospital mortality records, such as in Bhutan. We have not included sample registration systems. All-cause mortality statistics were analyzed when cause of death statistics were unavailable. Overall, the input database encompassed 148 countries and 3,507 country-years from 1980 to 2012. The mean number of years of data available per country or territory was 24, with availability ranging from one year (for Bangladesh, the Federated States of Micronesia, Kenya, Myanmar, Mozambique, Malawi, Pakistan, and Tanzania) to all 33 years in this time period (from 14 countries). The greatest number of countries or territories in the database occurred for 2005 (122 countries), and the least (25 countries) occurred for 2012. The average annual number of countries or territories with available data was 109. Additional file 1: Table S1 shows the years for which data were available from each country or territory. For 2,903 country-years (82.8%), cause of death data in some form were available, while for the remaining 604 country-years (17.2%), only aggregated all-cause mortality data were available (see Additional file 1: Figure S1).

Dimensions of vital statistics performance

Six general dimensions, or components, of VS performance were evaluated for all 3,507 country-years: 1) quality of cause of death reporting, 2) quality of age and sex reporting, 3) internal consistency, 4) completeness of death reporting, 5) level of cause-specific detail, and 6) public availability of VS data. We measured each dimension using a single empirical indicator (see Table 1). These indicators were selected using the following criteria: they could be empirically quantified, were comparable across data sources, and likely to be indicative of their corresponding dimension of VS performance.
Table 1

Vital statistics performance dimensions and indicators used to measure them

VS performance dimension

Indicator used

Formula

Quality of cause of death reporting

Garbage coding

Deaths Coded to Garbage Type 1 cy + 0.5 Deaths Coded to Garbage Type 2 cy All Death s cy

Quality of age and sex reporting

Age or sex unspecified

Deaths with Either Unspecified Age or Se x cy All Death s cy

Internal consistency

Medically impossible diagnoses

Deaths Considered Medically Impossible Given the Age or Sex of Deceden t cy All Death s cy

Completeness of death reporting

Completeness

Deaths Enumerated by VS Syste m cy Expected Number of Death s cy

Level of cause-specific detail

Length of cause list

Number of Distinct Causes of Death Reported by VS Dat a cy Number of Distinct Causes of Death Reported by GBD

Availability of timely VS data

NA

Exponential smoothing on the combination of the previous indicators

Quality of cause of death reporting

Misassignment of the underlying cause of death was selected as the indicator to describe the quality of cause of death reporting. Building on the work of Naghavi and colleagues [24], all data were systematically examined for records which were not coded to underlying causes of death, but rather coded to intermediate, immediate, unspecified, or otherwise inapplicable causes of death (collectively termed “garbage codes”). Closer examination reveals that most VS in fact contain a mixture of garbage codes, some being somewhat more meaningful than others. For example, deaths coded to the International Classification of Disease (ICD) code R99 – “other ill-defined and unspecified causes of mortality” – are effectively useless for public policy, whereas deaths coded to more specific, yet still vague codes such as C76 – “malignant neoplasm of other and ill-defined sites” – are more informative, despite being imprecise [25]. We classified garbage codes into two subcategories: those codes that do not contain any inherent information about the underlying cause of death (type 1), and those which do (type 2). There are several different categories of type 2 garbage codes; without any theoretical basis to weight each one separately, we arbitrarily assumed that type 2 garbage codes were, on average, 50% more informative than type 1. A full list of garbage codes can be found in the GBD supplementary material, and a table displaying this categorization for ICD-10 at the three-digit level can be found in Additional file 1: Table S2 [22].

For each country year (cy), we quantified the effective proportion of garbage codes as the sum of type 1 (i.e., uninformative garbage codes) and 50% of the amount of type 2 garbage codes, divided by the total number of deaths reported for that country-year:
Adjusted Garbage Proportion cy = Garbage Type 1 cy + 0.5 Garbage Type 2 cy All Death s cy

Where Garbage Type 1 cy and Garbage Type 2 cy are counts of deaths assigned to garbage codes in each category, and All deaths cy is the total count of observed deaths for a given country and year, including garbage codes.

Quality of age and sex reporting

The indicator used for this component was the number of deaths with either unspecified age or sex. This was simply calculated as the fraction of all deaths reported with either an unspecified age or sex, or both.

Internal consistency

To measure this dimension, we use an indicator of medically impossible cause of death assignments for any given age or sex. Drawing on both the medical literature and expert opinion, we developed a conservative list of causes of death that we believe are impossible at certain ages or for one sex. Examples of such medically impossible combinations are males diagnosed with cervical cancer or pregnancy-related mortality at ages less than 10 years. Additional file 1: Table S3 lists the specific age-sex combinations of causes deemed to be impossible. We then computed the fraction of deaths that this represented for each country-year.

Completeness of death reporting

We assessed this dimension as the percent of all expected deaths in a country-year that were actually observed. To assess completeness, we used the findings reported by Murray and colleagues [26] for the GBD study. They used established demographic techniques, including Generalized Growth Balance, Synthetic Extinct Generations, and a combination of the two to estimate the proportion of adult deaths that were reported in a civil registration system in each country-year [26]. Completeness of death registration for ages 5 and under was estimated by comparing under-5 mortality estimates to individual VS point estimates of under-5 mortality [21]. We computed a weighted average of these two age groups to produce a single indicator of completeness, weighted according to the estimated numbers of deaths in each broad age group.

Level of cause-specific detail

The indicator used for this component was the number of distinct causes of death reported in the VS for each country-year, divided by a reference standard number of distinct causes of death. We chose the list of causes of death (192 unique causes) developed for GBD as the standard, given the substantial public health inputs that had already been made to develop this list for global disease and injury assessment. We then quantified this indicator by computing the proportion of the 192 GBD-standard causes of death that were available for each country-year [22]. Exceptions were made for data that were reported using the ICD-8 A–List prior to 1981 or ICD-9 Basic Tabulation List prior to 1998, since these tabulation schemes had been recommended by WHO as a reporting standard [27]. We chose the years 1981 and 1998 to define when, respectively, ICD-8 and ICD-9 became unacceptable as the reporting standard based on the timing of the reporting lists used by all other countries in our dataset, allowing a two-year “grace period” after the initial adoption of these ICD standards.

Timeliness and availability of data

The final dimension of VS performance is simply the availability of VS data. This is conceptually different to the previous five dimensions, but we argue for its inclusion on the basis that even data of perfect quality are useless for public policy debates unless they are available. While sporadic availability of VS can be informative, we believe that the potential value of VS data in any given year, notwithstanding the five quality dimensions discussed above, is more than simply availability of data for that year, and encompasses the information content from VS for the immediately preceding years, appropriately weighted to reflect proximity to the most recent year. Some delay, however, is understandable for countries that assiduously apply data checking procedures and incorporate coroner follow-up. We thus applied an exponential smoothing algorithm to the combined values of the other five indicators (see next section) in order to incorporate a measure of a system’s performance to yield sustained VS output. Less weight was given to years further in the past to emphasize the important role of current VS data to approximate current epidemiologic patterns (see Additional file 2).

The concept of “timeliness” of data is effectively captured through the use of smoothing, since missing data for recent years will be more heavily penalized in the calculation, given the weighting system used, than missing data for earlier years. Our approach of acknowledging the “momentum” inherent in prior data availability, formalized through smoothing, thus allows us to calculate a score for this dimension for all calendar years, irrespective of whether or not VS were available for a given year(s).

Summary index of VS performance and data quality

The six dimensions described above may contribute differently to overall VS data quality and utility. For example, Table 2 demonstrates the variation across selected causes of death in the propensity to report deaths with unspecified age or sex. Certain causes, such as collective violence or malaria, are systematically reported with a higher percentage of unspecified age or sex (5.1% and 1.1%, respectively, based on all ICD-10-coded observations in our database). For completeness, garbage coding, and the attribution of impossible causes of death, various causes are systematically more affected than others as well. The consequence of these systematic patterns is that overall VS quality depends on both the level of each dimension (e.g., proportion of deaths with unspecified age or sex) as well as the cause of death composition of the population that generated the VS. The utility of VS data as a function of the level of detail in a cause list also depends on the composition of causes of death in a given population. For example, if the two leading causes of death are reported in aggregate, the VS will describe the epidemiologic profile of the population from which they were generated less accurately than if the two smallest causes of death were reported in aggregate. These observations suggest that a simple combination (such as an arithmetic mean) of the dimensions of VS performance may not be appropriate.
Table 2

Proportion of ICD-10 deaths with age or sex unspecified by cause (leading 15 causes only)

Cause

Percent with unspecified age or sex

Collective violence

5.1%

Assault by other means

2.1%

Other neonatal conditions

1.7%

Assault by firearm

1.6%

Legal intervention

1.3%

Yellow fever

1.2%

Exposure to forces of nature

1.2%

Assault by sharp object

1.1%

Malaria

1.1%

Neural tube defects

1.1%

Typhoid and paratyphoid fevers

1.0%

Neonatal encephalopathy (birth asphyxia and birth trauma)

0.9%

Pedestrian injury by road vehicle

0.9%

Syphilis

0.8%

Cholera

0.7%

Simulation

To develop a summary index of VS system performance, we first designed a simulation procedure to estimate how accurately the data describe the cause of death patterns in a population, given the levels of each indicator. Each dimension (except availability/timeliness) was simulated at progressively worse states (while holding the four other dimensions constant), and the extent to which the simulated epidemiologic profile differed from the actual epidemiologic profile of a reference population was calculated, as described below.

The similarity between cause-specific mortality fractions (CSMFs) from a particular simulated case and the reference CSMFs was measured using a metric termed CSMF Accuracy. CSMF Accuracy measures the overall absolute difference between predicted and “true” CSMFs as a fraction of the theoretically largest possible absolute difference between them and is computed as follows:
CSMF Accuracy = 1 j = 1 k CSM F J true CSM F j pred 2 1 Minimum CSM F j true

In terms of VS performance, CSMF pred is the CSMF directly observed from a given VS dataset, and CSMF true represents the hypothetically true CSMF for the same population for cause j out of a total number of k causes.

To define CSMF true for our simulation, we utilized the CSMFs from GBD, estimated for seven broad epidemiologic regions, by year, sex and age [25]. Stochastic variation was introduced to the GBD CSMFs, which were modeled to only represent systematic epidemiological trends. This was done by comparing GBD CSMFs to observed VS CSMFs for all available ICD-10-coded country-years, and computing the square root of the mean squared error (RMSE) between the two sets of CSMFs, by cause, age, and sex. Normally distributed disturbances were generated with mean zero and standard deviation set to cause-age-sex-specific RMSE and added to the GBD estimates.

CSMF pred in our simulation represents a hypothetical set of CSMFs which have been distorted due to a suboptimal level of one of the five (excluding availability/timeliness) dimensions of VS performance. These CSMFs were simulated by selectively removing deaths from the reference CSMFs (CSMF true ), and then recomputing CSMFs to define CSMF pred . Deaths were removed according to the empirical cause-specific probabilities derived from observed data for all VS country-years coded to ICD-10. For example, the proportion of each cause that was reported with either age or sex unspecified (Table 2) was used to selectively (with respect to the values in Table 2) remove deaths from the reference CSMFs when simulating suboptimal levels of age and sex reporting. Hypothetical CSMFs were simulated by manipulating one dimension at a time, holding the other four constant at their optimal level (either zero or one, depending on the dimension). Figure 1 provides a simplified diagram of this procedure, and Additional file 1: Table S5 demonstrates this procedure numerically.
Figure 1

Simulation procedure for four hypothetical causes of death.

Hypothetical sets of CSMFs were computed at progressively worse levels of a given dimension, from zero (e.g., no unspecified ages or sexes) to one (e.g., all deaths reported without age or sex) in increments of 0.01. At each simulated level, CSMF Accuracy was computed based on CSMF pred and CSMF true . This procedure was repeated for each dimension separately. Due to the instability of CSMFs based on small death counts, CSMF Accuracy was observed to actually increase as a consequence of a worse level of a given dimension at extreme values. In such cases, the minimum CSMF Accuracy from higher levels of the same dimension was imposed to restrict CSMF Accuracy estimates from paradoxically increasing. Figure 2 displays the CSMF Accuracy associated with varying levels of each indicator for each of the seven GBD regions as well as the global mean of all regions.
Figure 2

Simulated CSMF accuracy associated with each indicator by region. *Subtracted from one so that higher values are preferable to lower, as with other indicators.

Computation of the vital statistics performance index

Simulation results were applied to the input database (described earlier) by mapping region-specific CSMF Accuracy estimates obtained through simulation to observed levels of each dimension of VS performance (see Additional file 1: Table S4). For example, a garbage-coding level of 20% (i.e., 80% of deaths coded to nongarbage) produced CSMFs that were 87% accurate in simulation. From this we conclude that any observed VS country-year which had 20% of deaths coded to garbage codes was in fact 87% accurate in measuring the actual epidemiological pattern of causes of death in that population. In other words, there is not a straight one-to-one mapping between data accuracy (i.e., correct specification of the CSMFs in a population) and data quality (extent of garbage coding in that population). Continuing this example, the indicator for impossible cause of death assignments was found to produce a simulated CSMF Accuracy of 92% when 20% of deaths were impossibly coded. Thus if a given country in a particular year had 20% of deaths assigned to garbage codes and 20% of deaths coded to impossible causes of death, then these values would map to 87% accuracy as a consequence of poor cause of death reporting, and 92% accuracy based on observed internal consistency of the data. This mapping was performed for all levels of all five indicators with special exceptions made for observations with no cause of death reporting (see discussion). This produced transformed, or accuracy-weighted, values of the observed indicators of VS performance for all country-years with available VS. Additional file 1: Table S4 provides the transformed values for each indicator, at each level of simulation, from 1% to 100% globally, although the actual simulation was performed by epidemiologic region. These values provide evidence of the differential impact of different levels of performance in each of these dimensions on the overall accuracy and utility of VS data.

Using the transformed (weighted) values for each indicator, we created a composite index from the five cause-specific VS performance dimensions as the product of their associated CSMF Accuracy values, as follows:
VS Performance Inde x cy = Transformed Adjusted non Garbage Proportio n cy Transformed Proportion of Deaths with Known Age or Se x cy Transformed Proportion of Deaths which are not Medically Impossibl e cy Transformed Completenes s cy Transformed Cause List Lengt h cy

In other words, if the hypothetical country from the above example had 100% completeness, no deaths with unspecified age or sex (100% known age or sex) and 100% of the reference cause list available, its VSPI in that year would be the product of 0.87 and 0.92, or 0.80 (these being the values of CSMF Accuracy associated with poor cause of death reporting and poor internal consistency, respectively, in the above example). In other words, as a result of suboptimal cause of death reporting, this country’s VS are only 87% representative of what might be considered perfectly representative data. Because this example country also has suboptimal internal consistency, the VS are even less representative, reducing their accuracy from 87% to 80% (0.87 × 0.92).

The final dimension of VS performance is the availability of timely VS data. Because of the unique, multiyear implications of this component, as described earlier, it would be inappropriate to simply include it as a sixth indicator in the formula above since the representativeness and usefulness of VS is dependent on the existence of data, not only for the current year, but for previous years as well. We thus applied an exponential smoothing algorithm to values of the VSPI, counting all years without data as zero. To continue with the previous example (where the hypothetical country had a VSPI of 0.80 for a given year) suppose that the VSPI for all previous years had a value of 0.70. In this case, the present year’s final VSPI would be between 0.80 and 0.70 as a consequence of previous years with VS of poorer accuracy. For the exact specification of the smoothing algorithm, refer to the Additional file 2. In effect, this application makes the current value of the index most dependent on the quality of the present year’s VS, but it also requires that a VS system has consistently produced data in the recent past in order for it to be considered as well-performing.

Results

Simulation results

The results from the simulation define the relative importance of the five dimensions for determining the representativeness of VS in a single year. Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between each indicator and CSMF Accuracy, based on simulation, and Additional file 1: Table S4 shows the exact values of CSMF Accuracy for each indicator. CSMF Accuracy declined more steeply as a consequence of declining completeness than for any other indicator, meaning that if all indicators were equal, the level of completeness would exert the largest impact on the final VSPI. The level of cause specific detail was found to have a highly concave relationship with CSMF Accuracy, displaying only modest declines in accuracy at higher values, with declines gradually becoming more severe as the indicator approached zero. The indicators representing quality of cause of death reporting and age and sex reporting (garbage coding and unspecified age or sex, respectively) displayed similar CSMF Accuracy trends to one another. Both indicators implied a generally linear decrease in CSMF Accuracy as the indicator increased, with the important distinction of a different minimum, or point above which accuracy does not decrease any further. This was at a lower point for the indicator of unspecified age or sex than for garbage coding. Interestingly, these two indicators both had nonzero intercepts with the y-axis, indicating that even when both were at their worst possible levels, simulated VS still yielded some information content about the cause of death structure in the population. Finally, medically impossible diagnoses, the indicator describing internal consistency of the data, also reached a point beyond which CSMF Accuracy did not decline. This threshold was reached at a much lower level of this indicator than the unspecified age or sex indicator, however, owing to the limited number of causes which could potentially be impossibly coded based on age and sex.

Vital statistics performance index

The estimated VSPI for each country for the most recent year with data available (post 2005) is illustrated for broad categories in Figure 3a, which captures the data availability component of the index, but not timeliness of data, and in Figure 3b, which does. Specific values of the VSPI for countries, ranked according to the value of the index for their latest available data year, are given in Table 3. The mean VSPI since 2005 was 0.61, with a standard deviation of 0.31 (N = 133). Developed countries generally had higher VSPI values than developing countries, although a number of interesting departures from this generalization can be observed. For example Cuba, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Venezuela all demonstrate well-performing VS systems, whereas Switzerland, due to data being reported in recent years using a tabulation cause list rather than for detailed ICD codes, has low VS performance relative to its neighbors.
Figure 3

VS performance index. (a) Most recent year with data available (post-2005) (b) 2012.

Table 3

VS Performance Index by country/territory, most recent year available (post-2005)

Country

Year

VS performance index

Hungary

2012

95.7

Finland

2011

95.6

Estonia

2012

94.6

New Zealand

2009

94.4

Lithuania

2010

93.8

Moldova

2012

93.4

Australia

2011

92.1

Malta

2011

91.5

United Kingdom

2012

91.5

Austria

2011

91.3

Venezuela

2009

91.3

Iceland

2009

91.2

Slovakia

2010

91.2

Canada

2009

91.1

Cuba

2010

91.1

Latvia

2012

90.9

United States

2010

90.9

Chile

2009

90.8

Czech Republic

2012

90.5

Slovenia

2010

90.5

Costa Rica

2011

90.2

Germany

2012

90.0

Sweden

2010

89.4

Croatia

2012

89.3

Trinidad and Tobago

2008

89.3

Ireland

2010

88.9

Serbia

2012

88.9

Israel

2011

88.8

Mexico

2012

88.5

Netherlands

2011

88.5

Spain

2011

88.3

Bahamas

2008

87.8

Denmark

2011

87.8

Norway

2012

87.6

Japan

2011

87.0

Romania

2011

87.0

Mauritius

2011

86.9

Belize

2009

86.8

France

2010

86.7

South Korea

2011

86.6

Luxembourg

2011

86.6

Kyrgyzstan

2010

86.3

Kuwait

2011

85.9

Bermuda

2008

85.8

Puerto Rico

2010

85.2

Belgium

2010

84.9

Poland

2011

84.6

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

2010

84.3

Antigua and Barbuda

2009

83.0

Dominica

2010

82.9

Bulgaria

2012

82.8

Panama

2009

82.7

Brazil

2010

82.6

Colombia

2008

82.5

Cyprus

2011

82.0

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China

2011

82.0

Grenada

2010

81.9

Barbados

2008

81.1

Macedonia, FYR

2010

80.9

Portugal

2011

80.4

Argentina

2010

80.0

Italy

2010

79.1

Nicaragua

2011

78.3

Guatemala

2009

75.6

Malaysia

2008

75.5

El Salvador

2009

74.3

Taiwan

2012

73.2

Egypt

2011

73.0

South Africa

2009

72.6

Russia

2012

71.6

Guyana

2009

70.6

Singapore

2011

70.5†

Greece

2011

69.4

Suriname

2009

69.1

Jamaica

2006

68.8

Paraguay

2010

65.7

Saint Lucia

2008

64.0

Ecuador

2010

63.4

Qatar

2011

63.1

Uruguay

2009

61.7

Bahrain

2009

61.5

Peru

2010

61.0

Thailand

2007

57.2

Iran

2010

55.7

Jordan

2010

54.1

Armenia

2012

53.1

Uzbekistan

2005

53.0

Maldives

2011

52.5

Switzerland

2010

51.6

Georgia

2010

51.4

Turkey

2012

50.6

Dominican Republic

2010

50.2

Ukraine

2011

49.8

Seychelles

2009

47.6

Occupied Palestinian Territory

2009

47.5

Saudi Arabia

2012

45.7

Kazakhstan

2010

44.4

Brunei Darussalam

2011

40.2

Philippines

2008

40.2

Belarus

2009

38.3

Oman

2010

38.1

Sri Lanka

2006

35.6

China

2012

34.2

Montenegro

2009

31.8

Syria

2007

30.2†

Tajikistan

2005

30.0

Fiji

2011

29.6

Azerbaijan

2007

29.3

Algeria

2007

27.6

Bosnia and Herzegovina

2011

23.2

Bolivia

2006

21.7†

Kiribati

2005

18.3*

Mongolia

2010

15.1†

Morocco

2011

12.1

Iraq

2008

11.9

Botswana

2008

8.9†

Andorra

2010

8.4*

Albania

2010

7.7†

Turkmenistan

2006

7.6*

Macao Special Administrative Region of China

2010

7.4*

Bhutan

2009

6.1

India

2008

4.3

Zimbabwe

2007

4.1

Marshall Islands

2006

3.0*

Libya

2008

2.1

Myanmar

2005

1.8*

Ghana

2007

1.4

Gabon

2006

1.3†

Malawi

2007

0.4†

Pakistan

2009

0.1†

Kenya

2005

0.0†

Nigeria

2007

0.0†

Tanzania

2010

0.0†

*All-causes only.

†Index computed without garbage.

The following countries had no data available in 2005–2012: Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Congo, the Democratic Republic of the, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Micronesia, Federated States of, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, North Korea, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia.

Among high-income countries, Finland, New Zealand, Australia, and the United Kingdom had the highest-performing VS systems, with index values of 0.957, 0.944, 0.921, and 0.915, respectively. Six other countries from the high-income GBD region achieved VSPIs greater than 0.90 in their most recent available year, although most countries (27) did not have VS available for 2012. The high-income region scored the highest average VSPI of 0.814 (standard deviation 0.179, N = 33). Considerable heterogeneity is apparent within the Eastern Europe/Central Asia region, with Hungary, Moldova, Lithuania, and Estonia achieving values above or equal to 0.93 since 2010, meaning that their VS were at least 93% representative of the epidemiological situation of the country. Four additional countries in this region had indices greater than 0.90, yet the region overall had an average VSPI of 0.637 (standard deviation 0.301, N = 29), and 19 countries did not have VS available in 2012. Similar variability in VSPIs was found in the East Asia/Pacific region, which ranged from 0.820 in Hong Kong to 0.018 in Myanmar, with an average of 0.393 for the region (standard deviation 0.275, N = 13). The second-highest average index for a region was in Latin America and the Caribbean, which averaged 0.765 (standard deviation 0.148, N = 29) and ranged from 0.217 in Bolivia to 0.913 in Venezuela, indicating VS in Bolivia are only 21.7% representative of the likely Bolivian cause of death composition, compared with 91.3% representative in Venezuela. North Africa and the Middle East had an average index of 0.439 (standard deviation 0.237, N = 15), and sub-Saharan Africa averaged 0.203 (standard deviation 0.327, N = 11) with a notably high index (0.869) in Mauritius. However, this average was based on very few reporting countries with only 22.9% of all countries in sub-Saharan Africa providing data after 2005, as compared to 70% for the world, and 100% for the high-income and Eastern Europe/Central Asia regions. Finally, the South Asia region had the fewest number of countries (3) with available data in this time period, all of which had a very low VSPI: 0.061 in Bhutan, 0.043 in India, and 0.001 in Pakistan, based on data publicly available.A major factor affecting the utility of vital registration data is how timely they are. Arguably, the value of vital statistics in informing public policy debates will be greater the more current they are. Figure 3b shows VSPI scores for countries in 2012, the most recent year for which mortality statistics can be expected to be available (allowing an 18 month processing period). A comparison with Figure 3a is illuminating. Countries such as Hungary, the United Kingdom, Moldova and Estonia are likely to derive greatest benefit from their vital statistics because they are up-to-date. Conversely, several countries, including Canada, New Zealand, Venezuela and Chile, which scored highly when only data availability and quality are taken into account (Figure 3a), show much worse performance when comparing index scores in 2012. Indeed, CRVS performance in these four countries drops from the top category when timeliness is not taken into account, to the second bottom category when it is (Figure 3b). In this sense, Figure 3b shows the importance of recent data for providing information about the current epidemiological conditions in a country. In this sense, Figure 3b shows the importance of recent data for providing information about the current epidemiological conditions in a country. Reporting delays in most countries around the world greatly reduce the current VS performance index.

Contributions of performance dimensions

As expected, the five simulated indicators contributed differentially to observed VSPI values worldwide. Table 4 shows the amount of variation (measured as the marginal sum of squares and correlation coefficients) in the VSPI that can be explained by each component. Considering both the weight obtained through simulation and the variation in the actual data, the indicators of completeness and cause-specific detail were the strongest drivers of observed VSPI values, each explaining a substantial amount of variation (marginal sums of squares: 30.49 and 36.73; correlation coefficients: 0.71 and 0.62, respectively). The garbage coding indicator also had a strong impact on observed VSPI values, with a marginal sum of squares of 12.02 and correlation with the overall VSPI of 0.26, indicating that quality of cause of death reporting was also a very important dimension for VS quality. The indicator measuring impossible diagnoses explained more variance in the VSPI (18.58) but only did so for a few observations and had a relatively low (0.11) correlation with VSPI scores. Finally, the unspecified age or sex indicator explained the least amount of variation, with a very low marginal sum of squares (1.56), indicating that most countries’ VS system were performing similarly on this dimension.
Table 4

ANOVA results and correlation between VS performance index and indicators

 

Correlation with VSPI

Marginal sum of squares

Completeness

0.71

30.49

Cause list length

0.62

36.73

Garbage

0.26

12.02

Age/sex unspecified

0.25

1.56

Impossible diagnoses

0.11

18.58

Progress in strengthening vital statistics

Given the current global focus on strengthening VS systems, it is of interest to examine how VS performance in countries has changed over time. From the first year with available data (from each country included in analysis) to 2012, VS performance has modestly increased at an average annual rate of 0.36% per year, excluding abnormally high rates of change due to near-zero starting or ending values. Narrowing this time frame to include only years in which data are available (to avoid penalizing a country for a reporting delay), this rate of change increases to 2.10% per year, indicating that many countries have not reported data for more recent years, despite the policy value in doing so. A number of countries (27) were able to achieve improvements in VS performance greater than 5% per year (over the years for which data were available), as shown in Figure 4. Eight countries improved at modest rates between 1% and 5%, while 62, mostly high-income, countries demonstrated essentially stagnant VS performance (between −1% and 1% per year). In five countries, the VSPI actually declined at rates between 1% and 3% per year. Additional file 1: Figure S1 displays the entire time series for each country, including the five dimensions.
Figure 4

Average annualized rate of change in VS Performance Index from earliest to latest available observation (1980–2012).

At the global level, a more realistic appraisal of progress with VS systems would need to include countries that haven’t reported VS data and also to take into account the fraction of global mortality that each country represented in each year. When we do this, we find that only 19.0% of the world’s deaths between 2000 and 2012 occurred in countries that have well-performing VS systems (VSPI values greater than or equal to 0.8). This is barely an improvement from the same percentage in the 1990s, 18.9%, as well as the 1980s, 18.1%. Conversely, 67.4% of global mortality occurred in countries with poorly performing (lower than 0.5) VS systems post-2000, an improvement from 69.8% in the previous decade, and 72.7% in the 1980s. Thus while we might conclude that there has been improvement in CRVS systems over the past 30 years, it has been disappointingly slow, with the result that approximately two-thirds of global mortality currently is either poorly measured or entirely missed by VS systems in countries.

Discussion

As with any analytic framework, a number of assumptions and operational choices were required to be made in order to create the VSPI in a manner which balances parsimony and interpretability with conceptual and methodological rigor. It is important to note, however, that the exact purpose of the simulation procedure developed here was to reduce the number of assumptions that otherwise would have been required, particularly about weighting indicators, in order to specify the relative importance of the various domains. We discuss below some of the more important implications of these choices.

Potential methodological limitations in computing the index

One methodological choice was the reliance on a multiplicative model for combining indicators. A possible alternative option would have been to simulate the accuracy associated with differing levels of all indicators simultaneously in order to avoid such a model choice altogether. This was found to be prohibitively difficult to implement due to the fact that the cause list length indicator was the only dimension simulated with a hierarchically organized cause list. Barring country-years with suboptimal cause list lengths, we tested this alternative, “simultaneous-simulation” model, and found very similar results to the “multiplicative model” (Figure 5). Additionally, Figure 5 demonstrates that simulating each indicator individually has an advantage over simulating all indicators simultaneously, namely that CSMF Accuracy can be constrained to continually decline with worse levels of each indicator, as mentioned earlier. Two countries in this figure, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, would have unrealistically high VSPI values if a “simultaneous simulation” model were to be adopted, due to the chance possibility that CSMF Accuracy could increase when based on a smaller number of deaths.
Figure 5

Multiplicative model choice compared to alternative. Note: Bahrain and Saudi Arabia stand out because CSMF Accuracy on the x−axis has been restricted to decrease or remain constant as simulated indicators decrease; this is not possible for the y−axis.

There may also be dependency between indicators such as between garbage codes and cause list length: VS reported with a short cause list will be likely to have a small garbage proportion as a result. Gabon, for example, has a garbage percentage of exactly zero from 2001 to 2006. On closer inspection, it is clear that this is simply because only a small handful of aggregated causes of death were reported in these years. Because of the high degree of weight put on the garbage indicator relative to the cause list length indicator, Gabon would rank among the best countries in its region for VS performance, a conclusion that many would find surprising. We decided that the most elegant solution to this problem would be to simply compute the VSPI without the garbage indicator for cases where this was required, allowing an additional one-fourth weight for each other indicator. This exception affected approximately 3.5% (123) of all country-years, which were selected on the basis of the following criteria: a) garbage percentage for a given country-year ranked above the 90th percentile of all garbage percentages in the database and b) the cause list presented in the country-year was shorter than the reference standard cause list.

Approximately 17% of all country-years available for analysis reported data without causes of death, yet three of the six components pertain to causes of death. The solution posed in the previous paragraph, namely simply estimating the index without the missing indicators, does not apply in these cases, however; VS without cause of death information are likely to be of less value than those with poorly-coded causes of death. Hence, some value of CSMF accuracy that equates to zero cause of death reporting is needed. Theoretically, the minimum CSMF accuracy associated with the cause of death quality dimension represents this value because it reflects the accuracy of VS if 100% of all deaths were coded to garbage. We therefore used this minimum CSMF accuracy value in place of the cause-specific indicators of garbage and cause list length for all country-years that reported all causes in aggregate.

Availability and timeliness

Although the GBD database involved a substantial data collection effort, countries may have produced VS for various years which were either not made publicly available or were otherwise not included. Our analysis cannot distinguish between reasons for missing VS in the GBD database. As such, the VSPI might underestimate the actual amount of data that a country has available and hence underestimate the performance of their VS system. This dimension may also lead to a potentially misleading interpretation about the quality of recent VS data in a country which accomplished a rapid improvement in a short period of time. We believe that data availability and timeliness are critical to the utility of VS for public policy because to truly understand the policy implications of the current epidemiologic description of a population, a consistent time series is necessary. Hence we included availability as one of the six components of the index by use of exponential smoothing. By doing so, the VSPI provides a more comprehensive view of the performance of a VS system rather than assessing VS data at a single point in time. Indeed, given the impact of this dimension on the overall VSPI, improving VS performance in some countries may be less a matter of strengthening data collection procedures and more a matter of ensuring that data are routinely compiled and made available in a timely fashion.

Alternative indicators

Another consideration in our analysis is the choice of which indicators to use to describe performance. Another potential indicator of quality of cause of death reporting is the extent of misclassification, whereby certain causes of death are incorrectly and differentially diagnosed as other nongarbage codes. This phenomenon has been documented, for example, in South Africa, where HIV/AIDS mortality was drastically underreported and AIDS-related conditions consequently overreported [28]. Although studies such as this have been conducted to examine misclassification, none (to our knowledge) have examined an exhaustive list of causes of death, or at least none have done so in a manner which was generalizable to the national level, let alone across countries [2935]. Without quantification of the direction and magnitude of misclassification amongst all causes of death, incorporating this as an indicator was beyond the scope of this analysis. Also, misclassification and garbage coding both serve to describe the more general concept of cause of death reporting. These indicators have been observed to be highly correlated; hence garbage coding may be a sufficient indicator of overall cause of death reporting accuracy alone [30]. Furthermore, including multiple separate indicators of a single dimension would skew the final index to favor that component, due to its redundant appearance in the final formula.

A similar argument may be made for including an indicator of age misclassification, as well as age group aggregation (i.e., the use of 10-year, 15-year, or larger age groups in tabulation rather than the standard five-year age groups). Although aggregation is a readily quantifiable indicator, the counterarguments presented above against the inclusion of misclassification are equally valid in both cases. Unspecified age and sex reporting should act as a suitable summary indicator of general quality of age reporting and redundant indicators should be avoided.

VS coverage has been used as a complement to completeness in other analyses [19]. The choice to use completeness alone was made given the methodologically rigorous series of completeness estimates produced for GBD, and the lack of comparable information on coverage [21]. In general, and as limited sensitivity analyses have shown, the nuances of computing indicators to represent dimensions of VS performance are seemingly less consequential than the inclusion of exclusion of the dimensions themselves, as well as the development of a meaningful combination of these components.

Other potential methodological limitations

There are a number of other potential limitations to this analysis, including the arbitrary adjustment of garbage codes, the relevance of CSMF Accuracy, the smoothing component over time, the noise (stochasticity) generation process in defining the simulation dataset, the representativeness of simulation proportions, and other nuances specific to the simulation for each indicator. We discuss these more technical issues further in the Additional file 2.

Conclusions

There are clearly many choices and assumptions that must be made to construct a summary index of VS performance. The index we have proposed in this paper measures the performance of the output of death registration systems, gives insight into the relative contributions of five dimensions to overall performance of a VS system, and does so in an objective fashion. As the limitations of this study imply, summary indicators such as this do have a tendency to obscure nuances within VS performance, and practical application of the VSPI must entail examination of its subcomponents. This approach is not intended to entirely replace local expert opinion about VS system performance, but instead complement it, especially for monitoring change.

The findings from this study show that, all else being equal, completeness of a VS system is the most important aspect affecting performance, with similarly large contributions arising from the use of abbreviated cause of death lists to report data and widespread use of garbage codes to assign the underlying cause of death. Given the dominance of these dimensions, national strategies to rapidly strengthen VS systems would do well to focus on them.

Among the countries which have measurable VS systems, VS performance appears to be improving steadily. While this is encouraging, global efforts to improve VS systems have been less impressive; one-third of the world’s countries still do not report mortality data, because their systems are too rudimentary to compile data, only cover some urban areas, or particularly because the majority of people die outside health facilities and are not registered. Accounting for the size of the populations not served by VS systems, it is apparent that a great deal of room for improvement remains globally. The regular application of the VSPI to a global database will show where improvement is most needed and where encouraging progress has taken place. Such evidence is crucial for guiding global investments in strengthening vital statistics in countries.

As the emphasis on empirically based priority setting, monitoring global public health, and the evaluation of health programs continues to grow, so will the demand for reliable, timely, and comprehensive health information, particularly VS. Summary metrics such as the Vital Statistics Performance Index should greatly assist countries and the global public health community to understand in a comparable fashion how well these critical data systems are performing and help focus strategies designed to make them more fit for purpose.

Abbreviations

CoD: 

Causes of death

VS: 

Vital statistics

GBD: 

Global burden of disease

ICD: 

International Classification of Disease

CSMF: 

Cause-specific mortality fraction

RMSE: 

Root mean squared error.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Katherine Lofgren for her contributions involving completeness estimates. This work was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (DP, MN, DG-M, CA, RL, and CJLM) and the Australian Agency for International Development (ADL and LM). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, interpretation of data, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The corresponding author had full access to all data analyzed and had final responsibility for the decision to submit this original research paper for publication.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington
(2)
National Institute of Public Health, Universidad No. 655 Colonia Santa María Ahuacatitlán, Cerrada Los Pinos y Caminera
(3)
LM Consulting, Independent Consultant
(4)
School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne

References

  1. Dow U: Birth Registration: The “First” Right. The Progress of Nations. New York, USA: UNICEF; 1998:5-11.Google Scholar
  2. AbouZahr C, Boerma T: Health information systems: the foundations of public health. Bull World Health Organ 2005,83(8):578-583.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. PARIS21 Secretariat: A Guide to Designing a National Strategy for the Development of Statistics (NSDS). Paris, France: PARIS21; 2004.Google Scholar
  4. World Health Organization: Sixtieth World Health Assembly. WHA60.27 Strengthening of Health Information Systems. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2007.Google Scholar
  5. Mikkelsen L, Lopez AD: Improving the Quality and Use of Birth, Death and Cause-of-Death Information: Guidance for a Standards-Based Review of Country Practices [Internet]. Health Information Systems Knowledge Hub, School of Population Health, University of Queensland and World Health Organization; 2010. [cited 2013 Aug 27]. Available from: http://www.uq.edu.au/hishub/docs/WP01/WP_01.pdf Google Scholar
  6. World Health Organization, University of Queensland Health Information Systems Knowledge Hub: Rapid Assessment of National Civil Registration and Vital Statistics Systems. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2010.Google Scholar
  7. Mikkelsen L: Strategic Planning to Strengthen Civil Registration and Vital Statistics Systems: Guidance for Using Findings from a Comprehensive Assessment [Internet]. Health Information Systems Knowledge Hub, School of Population Health, University of Queensland; 2012. [cited 2013 Aug 27]. Available from: http://www.uq.edu.au/hishub/docs/WP23/HISHUB-WP%2023-02%20OCT.pdf Google Scholar
  8. Lopez AD, Mikkelsen L, Rampatige R, Upham S, AbouZahr C, Gamage S, de Savigny D, Schmider A: Strengthening Civil Registration and Vital Statistics for Births, Deaths and Causes of Death: Resource Kit [Internet]. Health Metrics Network and World Health Organization; 2013. [cited 2013 Aug 27]. Available from: http://www.uq.edu.au/hishub/docs/Resource%20Kit/CRVS_ResourceKIt_active_content.pdf Google Scholar
  9. International Monetary Fund: The General Data Dissemination System: Guide for Participants and Users. Washington D.C., USA: International Monetary Fund; 2007.Google Scholar
  10. PARIS21 Task Team on, Statistical Capacity Building Indicators: The Framework for Determining Statistical Capacity Building Indicators. Washington D.C., USA: International Monetary Fund; 2002.Google Scholar
  11. Health Metrics Network: Strengthening Country Health Information Systems: Assessment and Monitoring Tool. Version 1.75. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2006.Google Scholar
  12. Aqil A, Lippeveld T, Hozumi D: PRISM framework: a paradigm shift for designing, strengthening and evaluating routine health information systems. Health Policy Plan 2009,24(3):217-228. 10.1093/heapol/czp010View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. World Health Organization: Data Quality Assessment (DQA) Tool Version 1.0 [Internet]. WHO; 2013. [cited 2013 Jul 8]. Available from: http://www.who.int/entity/healthinfo/DQA_Tool.zip Google Scholar
  14. World Health Organization: The Immunization Data Quality Self-Assessment (DQS) Tool. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals; 2005.Google Scholar
  15. Jordan K, Percheret M, Croft P: Quality of morbidity coding in general practice computerized medical records: a systematic review. Fam Pract 2004,21(4):396-412. 10.1093/fampra/cmh409View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Brouwer H, Bindels P, Weert H: Data quality improvement in general practice. Fam Pract 2006,23(5):529-536. 10.1093/fampra/cml040View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gourbin C, Masuy-Stroobant G: Registration of vital data: are live births and stillbirths comparable all over Europe? Bull World Health Organ 1995,73(4):449-460.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Mahapatra P, Rao C: Cause of death reporting systems in India: a performance analysis. Natl Med J India 2001,14(3):154-162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Mathers CD, Ma Fat D, Inoue M, Rao C, Lopez AD: Counting the dead and what they died from: an assessment of the global status of cause of death data. Bull World Health Organ 2005,83(3):171-177.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Mahapatra P, Shibuya K, Lopez AD, Coullare F, Notzon FC, Rao C, Szreter S: Civil registration systems and vital statistics: successes and missed opportunities. Lancet 2007,370(9599):1653-1663. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61308-7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Wang H, Dwyer-Lindgren L, Lofgren KT, Rajaratnam JK, Marcus JR, Levin-Rector A, Levitz CE, Lopez AD, Murray CJL: Age-specific and sex-specific mortality in 187 countries, 1970–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012,380(9859):2071-2094. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61719-XView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lozano R, Naghavi M, Foreman K, Lim S, Shibuya K, Aboyans V, Abraham J, Adair T, Aggarwal R, Ahn SY, AlMazroa MA, Alvarado M, Anderson HR, Anderson LM, Andrews KG, Atkinson C, Baddour LM, Barker-Collo S, Bartels DH, Bell ML, Benjamin EJ, Bennett D, Bhalla K, Bikbov B, Bin Abdulhak A, Birbeck G, Blyth F, Bolliger I, Boufous S, Bucello C, et al.: Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012,380(9859):2095-2128. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61728-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Murray CJ, Ezzati M, Flaxman AD, Lim S, Lozano R, Michaud C, Naghavi M, Salomon JA, Shibuya K, Vos T, Wikler D, Lopez AD: GBD 2010: design, definitions, and metrics. Lancet 2012,380(9859):2063-2066. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61899-6View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Naghavi M, Makela S, Foreman K, O’Brien J, Pourmalek F, Lozano R: Algorithms for enhancing public health utility of national causes-of-death data. Popul Health Metr 2010.,8(9): doi:10.1186/1478-7954-8-9Google Scholar
  25. World Health Organization: ICD 10: International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems Volume 1. 10th Revision. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1992.Google Scholar
  26. Murray CJL, Rajaratnam JK, Marcus J, Laakso T, Lopez AD: What can we conclude from death registration? Improved methods for evaluating completeness. PLoS Med 2010,7(4):e1000262. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000262View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. World Health Organization: International Classification of Diseases (ICD) [Internet]. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2013. [cited 2013 Sep 11]. Available from: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/ Google Scholar
  28. Groenewald P, Nannan N, Bourne D, Laubscher R, Bradshaw D: Identifying deaths from AIDS in South Africa. AIDS 2005.,19(2): Available from: http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Fulltext/2005/01280/Identifying_deaths_from_AIDS_in_South_Africa.12.aspx Google Scholar
  29. Al-Samarrai T, Madsen A, Zimmerman R, Maduro G, Li W, Greene C: Impact of a Hospital-Level Intervention to reduce heart disease over reporting on leading causes of death. Prev Chronic Dis 2013, 10: E77.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Rao C, Yang G, Hu J, Ma J, Xia W, Lopez AD: Validation of cause-of-death statistics in urban China. Int J Epidemiol 2007,36(3):642-651. 10.1093/ije/dym003View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kircher T, Anderson RE: Cause of Death. Proper completion of the death certificate. J Am Med Assoc 1987,258(3):349-352. 10.1001/jama.1987.03400030065033View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Feuer EJ, Merrill RM, Hankey BF: Cancer surveillance series: interpreting trends in prostate cancer—part II: cause of death misclassification and the recent rise and fall in prostate cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999,91(12):1025-1032. 10.1093/jnci/91.12.1025View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Lloyd-Jones DM, Martin DO, Larson MG, Levy D: Accuracy of death certificates for coding coronary heart disease as the cause of death. Ann Intern Med 1998,129(12):1020-1026. 10.7326/0003-4819-129-12-199812150-00005View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Jensen HH, Godtfredsen NS, Lange P, Vestbo J: Potential misclassification of causes of death from COPD. Eur Respir J 2006,28(4):781-785. 10.1183/09031936.06.00152205View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Lahti R, Penttilä A: The validity of death certificates: routine validation of death certification and its effects on mortality statistics. Forensic Sci Int 2001,115(1–2):15-32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Phillips et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement