The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Verbal Autopsies for Adult Deaths: Issues in their Development and Validation
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The verbal autopsy appears to be an attractive technique for the assessment of causes of adult death in settings where the proportion of people who die while under medical care is low. Verbal autopsies have been used extensively to assess causes of childhood deaths. The existing experience in verbal autopsies for adult deaths is limited mainly to maternal deaths. This paper aims to highlight the critical issues in verbal autopsies to assess causes of adult death which need further research. METHODS: This paper reviews the methods of verbal autopsy used in 35 published studies and discusses issues in the development of verbal autopsies, including mortality classification, design of questionnaires, interviewers, respondents, recall periods, procedures for deriving a diagnosis and the recording of single versus multiple causes of death. It also discusses issues in the validation of verbal autopsies, including the choice of reference diagnosis and the required sample size. RESULTS: The methodological approaches used in verbal autopsy studies have varied widely. Very few studies of the validity of verbal autopsies have been conducted. In these studies, the reported sensitivity and specificity varied widely between different causes of death and between studies. CONCLUSIONS: The information available is inadequate to draw firm conclusions on preferred methodological approaches for verbal autopsies for adult deaths. Before these tools are used more widely for adult deaths, further research is required to compare alternative methods and to evaluate the validity of this tool in a range of settings.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Beyond the Numbers: reviewing maternal deaths and complications to make pregnancy safer
Lewis, G. (2003) · British Medical Bulletin · doi:10.1093/bmb/ldg009 · Cited by 554
Anderson, B. O., Cazap, E., El Saghir, N. S., Yip, C.-H., Khaled, H. M., Otero, I. V., Adebamowo, C. A., Badwe, R. A., & Harford, J. B. (2011) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(11)70031-6 · Cited by 320
Joshi, R., Cardona, M., Iyengar, S., Sukumar, A., Raju, C. R., Raju, K. R., Raju, K., Reddy, K. S., Lopez, A., & Neal, B. (2006) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyl168 · Cited by 313
Etard, J.-F., Ndiaye, I., Thierry-Mieg, M., Guèye, N. F. N., Guèye, P. M., Lanièce, I., Dieng, A. B., Diouf, A., Laurent, C., Mboup, S., et al. (2006) · AIDS · doi:10.1097/01.aids.0000226959.87471.01 · Cited by 278
Stroke incidence in rural and urban Tanzania: a prospective, community-based study
Walker, R., Whiting, D., Unwin, N., Mugusi, F., Swai, M., Aris, E., Jusabani, A., Kabadi, G., Gray, W. K., Lewanga, M., et al. (2010) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(10)70144-7 · Cited by 255
Metadata
- Authors
- CHANDRAMOHAN, D., MAUDE, G. H., RODRIGUES, L. C., & HAYES, R. J.
- Venue
- International Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1994
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 213-222
- ISSN
- 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3685
- OpenAlex
- W2114087760
- Cited by
- 187
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Verbal Autopsies for Adult Deaths: Issues in their Development and Validation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ije/23.2.213
- The paper
- CHANDRAMOHAN, D., MAUDE, G. H., RODRIGUES, L. C., & HAYES, R. J. (1994). Verbal Autopsies for Adult Deaths: Issues in their Development and Validation. International Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/23.2.213
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.