MARATTO

article · PLOS Global Public Health

Comparison of causes of stillbirth and child deaths as determined by verbal autopsy and minimally invasive tissue sampling

20243 citationsOpen accessUniversity of the Witwatersrand

Abstract

In resource-limited settings where vital registration and medical death certificates are unavailable or incomplete, verbal autopsy (VA) is often used to attribute causes of death (CoD) and prioritize resource allocation and interventions. We aimed to determine the CoD concordance between InterVA and CHAMPS's method. The causes of death (CoDs) of children <5 were determined by two methods using data from seven low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) enrolled in the Child Health and Mortality Prevention Surveillance (CHAMPS) network. The first CoD method was from the DeCoDe panel using data from Minimally Invasive Tissue Sampling (MITS), whereas the second method used Verbal Autopsy (VA), which utilizes the InterVA software. This analysis evaluated the agreement between the two using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient. The overall concordance of InterVA4 and DeCoDe in assigning causes of death across surveillance sites, age groups, and causes of death was poor (0.75 with 95% CI: 0.73-0.76) and lacked precision. We found substantial differences in agreement by surveillance site, with Mali showing the lowest and Mozambique and Ethiopia the highest concordance. The InterVA4 assigned CoD agrees poorly in assigning causes of death for U5s and stillbirths. Because VA methods are relatively easy to implement, such systems could be more useful if algorithms were improved to more accurately reflect causes of death, for example, by calibrating algorithms to information from programs that used detailed diagnostic testing to improve the accuracy of COD determination.

Research topics

  • Autopsy Techniques and Outcomes
  • Global Maternal and Child Health
  • Health disparities and outcomes

Sustainable Development Goals

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003065

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.