↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
Deconstructing the differences: a comparison of GBD 2010 and CHERG’s approach to estimating the mortality burden of diarrhea, pneumonia, and their etiologies
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-014-0728-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie D Kovacs, Kim Mullholland, Julia Bosch, Harry Campbell, Mohammad H Forouzanfar, Ibrahim Khalil, Stephen Lim, Li Liu, Stephen N Maley, Colin D Mathers, Alastair Matheson, Ali H Mokdad, Kate O’Brien, Umesh Parashar, Torin T Schaafsma, Duncan Steele, Stephen E Hawes, John T Grove

Abstract

BackgroundPneumonia 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsIHME¿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.DiscussionGreater 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 92 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 28%
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 37%
Social Sciences 11 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Environmental Science 4 4%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 13 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 November 2015.
All research outputs
#9,508,652
of 12,373,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,914
of 4,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,690
of 264,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,592 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 264,653 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.