The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Mortality Ascertainment in the Veteran Population: Alternatives to the National Death Index
Abstract
Veterans of the US military service constitute a dynamic cohort that is suitable for epidemiologic investigations. However, the ability to ascertain vital status is paramount to the value of this population in studies having mortality as a primary endpoint. The purpose of this study was to estimate and compare the mortality ascertainment obtained from the Department of Veterans Affairs Patient Treatment File and Beneficiary Identification and Record Locator System (BIRLS) with that obtained from the National Death Index on a cohort of 17,118 male veterans hospitalized in 1970 or 1971. Based on the 4,246 deaths identified in this cohort between 1979 and 1988, the sensitivities of BIRLS, the Patient Treatment File, and the National Death Index were 94.5%, 33.0%, and 96.7%, respectively. BIRLS was comparable with the National Death Index regarding mortality ascertainment and allowed for central acquisition of 89% of the death certificates from the Department of Veterans Benefits. There was no difference detected in the completeness of the BIRLS file before and after passage of the Omnibus Act in 1981. The Patient Treatment File served as a complement to BIRLS, providing additional mortality data and identification of hospitals for recall of medical records. The National Death Index provided the best mortality ascertainment, but acquistion of death certificates from individual states was extremely time consuming and expensive. The authors recommend greater consideration by investigators of sampling the veteran population and utilizing available Veterans Affairs databases for large studies in which mortality is the primary endpoint of interest.
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
Khuri, S. F., Henderson, W. G., DePalma, R. G., Mosca, C., Healey, N. A., & Kumbhani, D. J. (2005) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000179621.33268.83 · Cited by 1,452
Miller, D. R., Safford, M. M., & Pogach, L. M. (2004) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.27.suppl_2.b10 · Cited by 425
Risk Factors Associated With Suicide in Current and Former US Military Personnel
LeardMann, C. A., Powell, T. M., Smith, T. C., Bell, M. R., Smith, B., Boyko, E. J., Hooper, T. I., Gackstetter, G. D., Ghamsary, M., & Hoge, C. W. (2013) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2013.65164 · Cited by 395
Disparities in Diabetes Care: Impact of Mental Illness
Frayne, S. M., Halanych, J. H., Miller, D. R., Wang, F., Lin, H., Pogach, L., Sharkansky, E. J., Keane, T. M., Skinner, K. M., Rosen, C. S., et al. (2005) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.165.22.2631 · Cited by 336
Veterans Aging Cohort Study (VACS): Overview and Description
Justice, A. C., Dombrowski, E., Conigliaro, J., Fultz, S. L., Gibson, D., Madenwald, T., Goulet, J., Simberkoff, M., Butt, A. A., Rimland, D., et al. (2006) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000223741.02074.66 · Cited by 320
Metadata
- Authors
- Fisher, S. G., Weber, L., Goldberg, J., & Davis, F.
- Venue
- American Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1995-02-01
- Volume
- 141
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 242-250
- ISSN
- 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-6256
- OpenAlex
- W1925431852
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.76
- 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: Mortality Ascertainment in the Veteran Population: Alternatives to the National Death Index. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117426
- The paper
- Fisher, S. G., Weber, L., Goldberg, J., & Davis, F. (1995). Mortality Ascertainment in the Veteran Population: Alternatives to the National Death Index. American Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117426
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.