↓ Skip to main content

Redistributing deaths by ill-defined and unspecified causes on cancer mortality in Brazil

Overview of attention for article published in Revista de Saúde Pública, December 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Redistributing deaths by ill-defined and unspecified causes on cancer mortality in Brazil
Published in
Revista de Saúde Pública, December 2021
DOI 10.11606/s1518-8787.2021055003319
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessandro Bigoni, Amanda Ramos da Cunha, José Leopoldo Ferreira Antunes

Abstract

to discuss the impact four different redistribution strategies have on the quantitative and temporal trends of cancer mortality assessment in Brazil. This study used anonymized and georeferenced data provided by the Brazilian Ministry of Health (BMoH). Four different approaches were used to conduct the redistribution of ill-defined deaths and garbage codes. Age-standardized mortality rates used the world population as reference. Prais-Winsten autoregression allowed the calculation of region, sex, and cancer type trends. Death rates increased considerably in all regions after redistribution. Overall, Elisabeth B. França's and the World Health Organization methods had a milder impact on trends and rate magnitudes when compared to the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 method. This study also observed that, when the BMoH dealt with the problem of redistributing ill-defined deaths, results were similar to those obtained by the GBD method. The redistribution methods also influenced the assessment of trends; however, differences were less pronounced. Since developing a comparative gold standard is impossible, matching global techniques to local realities may be an alternative for methodological selection. In our study, the compatibility of the findings suggests how valid the GBD method is to the Brazilian context. However, caution is needed. Future studies should assess the impact of these methods as applied to the redistribution of deaths to type-specific neoplasms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Researcher 1 11%
Student > Postgraduate 1 11%
Unknown 5 56%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 11%
Unknown 6 67%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 January 2022.
All research outputs
#16,734,944
of 25,392,582 outputs
Outputs from Revista de Saúde Pública
#601
of 1,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#277,862
of 499,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista de Saúde Pública
#10
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,392,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,139 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 499,167 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.