State Differences in the Reporting of Diabetes-Related Incorrect Cause-of-Death Causal Sequences on Death Certificates

Cheng, Tain‐Junn; Lu, Tsung‐Hsueh; Kawachi, Ichiro

doi:10.2337/dc11-2156

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, hypertension and diabetes mortality are typically associated with a cardiovascular event. 45,46 There is the potential for residual confounding and may be error associated with self-reported covariates. Increased dietary intake may confound or mediate associations with TV viewing owing to increased snacking behavior, 47,48 and though adjustment for and stratification by BMI and diet quality had minimal effect on risk estimates, it is possible that residual confounding persists.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Causes of Death Associated With Prolonged TV Viewing

Keadle

Moore

Sampson

et al. 2015

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction TV viewing is the most prevalent sedentary behavior and is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer mortality, but the association with other leading causes of death is unknown. This study examined the association between TV viewing and leading causes of death in the U.S. Methods A prospective cohort of 221,426 individuals (57% male) aged 50–71 years who were free of chronic disease at baseline (1995–1996), 93% white, with an average BMI of 26.7 (SD=4.4) kg/m2 were included. Participants self-reported TV viewing at baseline and were followed until death or December 31, 2011. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for TV viewing and cause-specific mortality were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Analyses were conducted in 2014–2015. Results After an average follow-up of 14.1 years, adjusted mortality risk for a 2-hour/day increase in TV viewing was significantly higher for the following causes of death (HR [95% CI]): cancer (1.07 [1.03, 1.11); heart disease (1.23 [1.17, 1.29]); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1.28 [1.14, 1.43]); diabetes (1.56 [1.33, 1.83]); influenza/pneumonia (1.24 [1.02, 1.50]); Parkinson disease (1.35 [1.11, 1.65]); liver disease (1.33 [1.05, 1.67]); and suicide (1.43 [1.10, 1.85]. Mortality associations persisted in stratified analyses with important potential confounders, reducing causation concerns. Conclusions This study shows the breadth of mortality outcomes associated with prolonged TV viewing, and identifies novel associations for several leading causes of death. TV viewing is a prevalent discretionary behavior that may be a more important target for public health intervention than previously recognized. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00340015

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Causes of Death Associated With Prolonged TV Viewing

Keadle

Moore

Sampson

et al. 2015

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In previous studies, about three-quarters of the incorrect causal sequences involved incorrectly reporting other conditions as the cause of diabetes, mainly hypertension and acute myocardial infarction. A less frequent anomaly was diabetes incorrectly reported as the cause of other diseases [ 15 , 28 ]. In our database, diabetes was most frequently mentioned in Part II of the certificate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple causes of death analysis of chronic diseases: the example of diabetes

Fedeli

Zoppini

Goldoni³

et al. 2015

Popul Health Metrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIdentifying a single disease as the underlying cause of death (UCOD) is an oversimplification of the clinical-pathological process leading to death. The multiple causes of death (MCOD) approach examines any mention of a disease in death certificates. Taking diabetes as an example, the study investigates: patterns of death certification, differences in mortality figures based on the UCOD and on MCOD, factors associated to the mention of diabetes in death certificates, and potential of MCOD in the analysis of the association between chronic diseases.MethodsThe whole mortality archive of the Veneto Region-Italy was extracted from 2008 to 2010. Mortality rates and proportional mortality were computed for diabetes as the UCOD and as MCOD. The position of the death certificate where diabetes was mentioned was analyzed. Conditional logistic regression was applied with chronic liver diseases (CLD) as the outcome and diabetes as the exposure variable. A subset of 19,605 death certificates of known diabetic patients (identified from the archive of exemptions from medical charges) was analyzed, with mention of diabetes as the outcome and characteristics of subjects as well as other diseases reported in the certificate as predictors.ResultsIn the whole mortality archive, diabetes was mentioned in 12.3 % of death certificates, and selected as the UCOD in 2.9 %. The death rate for diabetes as the UCOD was 26.8 × 105 against 112.6 × 105 for MCOD; the UCOD/MCOD ratio was higher in males. The major inconsistencies of certification were entering multiple diseases per line and reporting diabetes as a consequence of circulatory diseases. At logistic regression the mention of diabetes was associated with the mention of CLD (mainly non-alcohol non-viral CLD). In the subset of known diabetic subjects, diabetes was reported in 52.1 %, and selected as the UCOD in 13.4 %. The probability of reporting diabetes was higher with coexisting circulatory diseases and renal failure and with long duration of diabetes, whereas it was lower in the presence of a neoplasm.ConclusionsThe use of MCOD makes the analysis of mortality data more complex, but conveys more information than usual UCOD analyses.

show abstract

“…The quality and reliability of MCCD for use in mortality studies is a source of scrutiny and debate: studies in Australia, Chile, Estonia, Sri Lanka, Greece, the United Kingdom and the United States have noted common problems as being ill‐defined causes of death or modes of death, improper causal sequences and the mechanism rather than the cause of death being reported (Antini, Rajs, Munoz‐Quezada, Mondaca, & Heiss, ; Bell, Gaitatzis, Johnson, & Sander, ; Bugeja, Clapperton, Killian, Stephan, & Ozanne‐Smith, ; Cheng, Lu, & Kawachi, ; Katsakiori, Panagiotopoulou, Sakellaropoulos, Papazafiropoulou, & Kardara, ; Rahu, Palo, & Rahu, ; Rampatige, Gamage, Peiris, & Lopez, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%