↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review and synthesis of the strengths and limitations of measuring malaria mortality through verbal autopsy

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A systematic review and synthesis of the strengths and limitations of measuring malaria mortality through verbal autopsy
Published in
Malaria Journal, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-2071-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samantha Herrera, Yeetey Enuameh, George Adjei, Kenneth Ayuurebobi Ae-Ngibise, Kwaku Poku Asante, Osman Sankoh, Seth Owusu-Agyei, Yazoume Yé

Abstract

Lack of valid and reliable data on malaria deaths continues to be a problem that plagues the global health community. To address this gap, the verbal autopsy (VA) method was developed to ascertain cause of death at the population level. Despite the adoption and wide use of VA, there are many recognized limitations of VA tools and methods, especially for measuring malaria mortality. This study synthesizes the strengths and limitations of existing VA tools and methods for measuring malaria mortality (MM) in low- and middle-income countries through a systematic literature review. The authors searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Popline, WHOLIS, Google Scholar, and INDEPTH Network Health and Demographic Surveillance System sites' websites from 1 January 1990 to 15 January 2016 for articles and reports on MM measurement through VA. article presented results from a VA study where malaria was a cause of death; article discussed limitations/challenges related to measurement of MM through VA. Two authors independently searched the databases and websites and conducted a synthesis of articles using a standard matrix. The authors identified 828 publications; 88 were included in the final review. Most publications were VA studies; others were systematic reviews discussing VA tools or methods; editorials or commentaries; and studies using VA data to develop MM estimates. The main limitation were low sensitivity and specificity of VA tools for measuring MM. Other limitations included lack of standardized VA tools and methods, lack of a 'true' gold standard to assess accuracy of VA malaria mortality. Existing VA tools and methods for measuring MM have limitations. Given the need for data to measure progress toward the World Health Organization's Global Technical Strategy for Malaria 2016-2030 goals, the malaria community should define strategies for improving MM estimates, including exploring whether VA tools and methods could be further improved. Longer term strategies should focus on improving countries' vital registration systems for more robust and timely cause of death data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 12%
Student > Master 8 12%
Lecturer 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 18 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Social Sciences 9 13%
Computer Science 1 1%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 1%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 22 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 December 2017.
All research outputs
#6,100,987
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,526
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,412
of 332,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#40
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.