Swedish
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
BMC Infectious Diseases 2015-Jan

Deconstructing the differences: a comparison of GBD 2010 and CHERG's approach to estimating the mortality burden of diarrhea, pneumonia, and their etiologies.

Endast registrerade användare kan översätta artiklar
Logga in Bli medlem
Länken sparas på Urklipp
Stephanie D Kovacs
Kim Mullholland
Julia Bosch
Harry Campbell
Mohammad H Forouzanfar
Ibrahim Khalil
Stephen Lim
Li Liu
Stephen N Maley
Colin D Mathers

Nyckelord

Abstrakt

BACKGROUND

Pneumonia and diarrhea are leading causes of death for children under five (U5). It is challenging to estimate the total number of deaths and cause-specific mortality fractions. Two major efforts, one led by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) and the other led by the World Health Organization (WHO)/Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group (CHERG) created estimates for the burden of disease due to these two syndromes, yet their estimates differed greatly for 2010.

METHODS

This paper discusses three main drivers of the differences: data sources, data processing, and covariates used for modelling. The paper discusses differences in the model assumptions for etiology-specific estimates and presents recommendations for improving future models.

RESULTS

IHME's Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 study estimated 6.8 million U5 deaths compared to 7.6 million U5 deaths from CHERG. The proportional differences between the pneumonia and diarrhea burden estimates from the two groups are much larger; GBD 2010 estimated 0.847 million and CHERG estimated 1.396 million due to pneumonia. Compared to CHERG, GBD 2010 used broader inclusion criteria for verbal autopsy and vital registration data. GBD 2010 and CHERG used different data processing procedures and therefore attributed the causes of neonatal death differently. The major difference in pneumonia etiologies modeling approach was the inclusion of observational study data; GBD 2010 included observational studies. CHERG relied on vaccine efficacy studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater transparency in modeling methods and more timely access to data sources are needed. In October 2013, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) hosted an expert meeting to examine possible approaches for better estimation. The group recommended examining the impact of data by systematically excluding sources in their models. GBD 2.0 will use a counterfactual approach for estimating mortality from pathogens due to specific etiologies to overcome bias of the methods used in GBD 2010 going forward.

Gå med på vår
facebook-sida

Den mest kompletta databasen med medicinska örter som stöds av vetenskapen

  • Fungerar på 55 språk
  • Växtbaserade botemedel som stöds av vetenskap
  • Örter igenkänning av bild
  • Interaktiv GPS-karta - märka örter på plats (kommer snart)
  • Läs vetenskapliga publikationer relaterade till din sökning
  • Sök efter medicinska örter efter deras effekter
  • Organisera dina intressen och håll dig uppdaterad med nyheterna, kliniska prövningar och patent

Skriv ett symptom eller en sjukdom och läs om örter som kan hjälpa, skriv en ört och se sjukdomar och symtom den används mot.
* All information baseras på publicerad vetenskaplig forskning

Google Play badgeApp Store badge