Cited by 772COVID-19 epidemiological studiesData-Driven Disease SurveillanceCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts

Tracking excess mortality across countries during the COVID-19 pandemic with the World Mortality Dataset

Open access
Karlinsky, Ariel, Kobak, Dmitry·2021·eLife

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Comparing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic between countries or across time is difficult because the reported numbers of cases and deaths can be strongly affected by testing capacity and reporting policy. Excess mortality, defined as the increase in all-cause mortality relative to the expected mortality, is widely considered as a more objective indicator of the COVID-19 death toll. However, there has been no global, frequently updated repository of the all-cause mortality data across countries. To fill this gap, we have collected weekly, monthly, or quarterly all-cause mortality data from 103 countries and territories, openly available as the regularly updated World Mortality Dataset. We used this dataset to compute the excess mortality in each country during the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that in several worst-affected countries (Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Mexico) the excess mortality was above 50% of the expected annual mortality (Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Mexico) or above 400 excess deaths per 100,000 population (Peru, Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Serbia). At the same time, in several other countries (e.g. Australia and New Zealand) mortality during the pandemic was below the usual level, presumably due to social distancing measures decreasing the non-COVID infectious mortality. Furthermore, we found that while many countries have been reporting the COVID-19 deaths very accurately, some countries have been substantially underreporting their COVID-19 deaths (e.g. Nicaragua, Russia, Uzbekistan), by up to two orders of magnitude (Tajikistan). Our results highlight the importance of open and rapid all-cause mortality reporting for pandemic monitoring.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7554/elife.69336

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The deficit in excess mortality in many high-quality reporting countries is due to decreases in non-natural and natural deaths during the analysed period and less severe influenza seasons in 2020 and 2021 relative to previous years.

    “The greater number of these countries have high-quality reporting systems and this deficit is due to deaths from non-natural and natural causes decreasing during the analysed period13 and there having been less severe influenza seasons in 2020 and 2021 relative to previous years19.”

    From The WHO estimates of excess mortality associated with the COVID-19 pandemic (2023) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Results (Undercount of COVID deaths; page unavailable) say that accurate COVID-death reporting can coexist with a deficit in excess deaths because non-COVID mortality decreased, mostly through influenza suppression. The Discussion (Contributions to excess mortality; page unavailable) says changes in unnatural deaths varied by country and played only a minor role; it does not support a general decrease in both natural and non-natural deaths as the cause. The separate claim about influenza seasons is attached to citation 19, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This study complies with the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER) statement.

    “This study complies with the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting17 statement (appendix pp 3–4).”

    From Estimating excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic analysis of COVID-19-related mortality, 2020–21 (2022) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Discussion’s Summary identifies this paper as presenting the World Mortality Dataset, and the Materials and methods discuss its data and limitations. Our copy does not address the GATHER statement or whether the citing study complied with it (searched for GATHER, the guideline’s full name, and reporting-guideline compliance). (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Other settings with >25% increases in mortality during the pandemic have included Russia and LMICs within Latin America, Eastern Europe, and central Asia.

    “Other settings with >25% increases in mortality during the pandemic have included Russia and LMICs within Latin America, Eastern Europe, and central Asia1,4.”
  • India is one of many settings where excess all-cause mortality during the pandemic vastly exceeded reported COVID-19 deaths.

    “India is one of many settings where excess all-cause mortality during the pandemic vastly exceeded reported COVID-19 deaths1.”
  • India is among the countries most severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “India is among the countries most severely impacted by the pandemic.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Castanheira HZ da Silva JHM Del Popolo F 2021 COVID-19 mortality in Latin America: an analysis of available data Population Association of America Annual Conference, 2021
  2. Hale T Angrist N Cameron-Blake E Hallas L Kira B Majumdar S Petherick A Phillips T Tatlow H Webster S 2020 Variation in Government Responses to COVID-19. BSG Working Paper Series University of Oxford Blavatnik School of Government

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Karlinsky, A., & Kobak, D.
Affiliations
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
Corresponding author
Karlinsky, Ariel
Venue
eLife
Published
2021-06-30
Volume
10
ISSN
2050-084X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3173464765
Cited by
772
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 51 · 2025: 74 · 2024: 123 · 2023: 181 · 2022: 242 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
61.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (390727645 and BE5601/4-1)
  • Federal Ministry of Education and Research (FKZ 01GQ1601 and 01IS18039A)
  • National Institutes of Health (U19MH114830)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Data-Driven Disease Surveillance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › COVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Keywords
excess mortality, COVID-19 pandemic, all-cause mortality, underreporting of deaths, social distancing, pandemic monitoring, cross-national comparison

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