Performance of the Tariff Method: validation of a simple additive algorithm for analysis of verbal autopsies

BackgroundVerbal autopsies provide valuable information for studying mortality patterns in populations that lack reliable vital registration data. Methods for transforming verbal autopsy results into meaningful information for health workers and policymakers, however, are often costly or complicated to use. We present a simple additive algorithm, the Tariff Method (termed Tariff), which can be used for assigning individual cause of death and for determining cause-specific mortality fractions (CSMFs) from verbal autopsy data.MethodsTariff calculates a score, or "tariff," for each cause, for each sign/symptom, across a pool of validated verbal autopsy data. The tariffs are summed for a given response pattern in a verbal autopsy, and this sum (score) provides the basis for predicting the cause of death in a dataset. We implemented this algorithm and evaluated the method's predictive ability, both in terms of chance-corrected concordance at the individual cause assignment level and in terms of CSMF accuracy at the population level. The analysis was conducted separately for adult, child, and neonatal verbal autopsies across 500 pairs of train-test validation verbal autopsy data.ResultsTariff is capable of outperforming physician-certified verbal autopsy in most cases. In terms of chance-corrected concordance, the method achieves 44.5% in adults, 39% in children, and 23.9% in neonates. CSMF accuracy was 0.745 in adults, 0.709 in children, and 0.679 in neonates.ConclusionsVerbal autopsies can be an efficient means of obtaining cause of death data, and Tariff provides an intuitive, reliable method for generating individual cause assignment and CSMFs. The method is transparent and flexible and can be readily implemented by users without training in statistics or computer science.

[1]  Rajendra Prasad,et al.  Population Health Metrics Research Consortium gold standard verbal autopsy validation study: design, implementation, and development of analysis datasets , 2011, Population health metrics.

[2]  Alan D. Lopez,et al.  Setting international standards for verbal autopsy. , 2007, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[3]  Sean T. Green,et al.  Random forests for verbal autopsy analysis: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards , 2011, Population health metrics.

[4]  Alan D. Lopez,et al.  Performance of physician-certified verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards , 2011, Population health metrics.

[5]  Alan D. Lopez,et al.  Performance of InterVA for assigning causes of death to verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards , 2011, Population health metrics.

[6]  Gonghuan Yang,et al.  Validation of the Symptom Pattern Method for Analyzing Verbal Autopsy Data , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[7]  Rafael Lozano,et al.  Robust metrics for assessing the performance of different verbal autopsy cause assignment methods in validation studies , 2011, Population health metrics.

[8]  Alan D. Lopez,et al.  What do children die from in India today? , 2010, The Lancet.

[9]  Alan D. Lopez,et al.  Simplified Symptom Pattern Method for verbal autopsy analysis: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards , 2011, Population health metrics.

[10]  Victor R. Preedy,et al.  Population Health Metrics , 2010 .

[11]  Ying Lu,et al.  Verbal Autopsy Methods with Multiple Causes of Death , 2008, 0808.0645.

[12]  P. Byass,et al.  Verbal autopsy: methods in transition. , 2010, Epidemiologic reviews.

[13]  Peter Byass,et al.  A probabilistic approach to interpreting verbal autopsies: methodology and preliminary validation in Vietnam , 2003, Scandinavian journal of public health. Supplement.

[14]  Peter Byass,et al.  Moving from Data on Deaths to Public Health Policy in Agincourt, South Africa: Approaches to Analysing and Understanding Verbal Autopsy Findings , 2010, PLoS medicine.

[15]  Peter Byass,et al.  Refining a probabilistic model for interpreting verbal autopsy data , 2006, Scandinavian journal of public health.

[16]  C. Murray,et al.  Direct estimation of cause-specific mortality fractions from verbal autopsies: multisite validation study using clinical diagnostic gold standards , 2011, Population health metrics.

[17]  Daniel Chandramohan,et al.  Verbal autopsy: current practices and challenges. , 2006, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.