Factors associated with errors in death certificate completion

Lu, Tsung Hsueh; Shau, Wen Yi; Shih, Tai Pin; Lee, Meng Chih; Chou, Ming Chih; Lin, Chen Kun

doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00299-7

Cited by 85 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This analysis is limited by the quality of data collection and reporting to the SIM national database. The accuracy of death certificate and hospital-coded death data has long been recognized as limited (Glasser 1981;Lu et al 2001), in particular with road traffic deaths (Harris 1990;Hijar et al 2012;Lapidus et al 1994). Previous studies from Brazil have shown that cause-ofdeath coding in the SIM database can be limited; when reviewing coded deaths from the southern city of Porto Alegre, Fajardo et al (2009) found that nearly 13 percent needed to be recoded by researchers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Road Traffic Deaths in Brazil: Rising Trends in Pedestrian and Motorcycle Occupant Deaths

Chandran

Sousa

Guo

et al. 2012

Traffic Injury Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Road Traffic Deaths in Brazil: Rising Trends in Pedestrian and Motorcycle Occupant Deaths

Chandran

Sousa

Guo

et al. 2012

Traffic Injury Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…13 14 First of all, we identified causes of death with a low reliability, notably chronic diseases ( 15 For example, according to the ICD-10 selection rule 3 a coder can select a disease as a cause of death disregarding any causal connection reported on the death certificate when death is obviously a direct consequence of this disease. 16 Interpretation of "obviously" is left to the discretion of the coders, forming a source of variations in coding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The reliability of cause-of-death coding in The Netherlands

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Cause-of-death statistics are a major source of information for epidemiological research or policy decisions. Information on the reliability of these statistics is important for interpreting trends in time or differences between populations. Variations in coding the underlying cause of death could hinder the attribution of observed differences to determinants of health. Therefore we studied the reliability of cause-of-death statistics in the Netherlands. Methods:We performed a double coding study. Death certificates from the month of May 2005 were coded again in 2007. Each death certificate was coded manually by four coders. Reliability was measured by calculating agreement between coders (intercoder agreement)and by calculating the consistency of each individual coder in time (intracoder agreement).Our analysis covered an amount of 10 833 death certificates. Results:The intercoder agreement of four coders on the underlying cause of death was 78%. In 2.2% of the cases coders agreed on a change of the code assigned in 2005. The (mean) intracoder agreement of four coders was 89%. Agreement was associated with the specificity of the ICD-10 code (chapter, three digits, four digits), the age of the deceased, the number of coders and the number of diseases reported on the death certificate. The reliability of cause-of-death statistics turned out to be high (> 90%) for major causes of death such as cancers and acute myocardial infarction. For chronic diseases, such as diabetes and renal insufficiency, reliability was low (< 70%). Conclusions:The reliability of cause-of-death statistics varies by ICD-10 code/chapter. A statistical office should provide coders with (additional) rules for coding diseases with a low reliability and evaluate these rules regularly. Users of cause-of-death statistics should exercise caution when interpreting causes of death with a low reliability. Studies of reliability should take into account the number of coders involved and the number of codes on a death certificate.

show abstract

“…Em 1994, estudo realizado em Taiwan, utilizando a classificação de Leadbeatter modificada, encontrou 11% de erro do tipo grande (somente o mecanismo do óbito ou múltiplas causas foram registradas) e 28% de erro do tipo pequeno (somente uma causa inespecífica foi registrada ou a seqüência não estava em ordem correta) 19 .…”

Section: Acurácia Do Sim Na Seleção Da Causa Básicaunclassified