Evaluation of California Non-Comprehensive Death File Against National Death Index.
Data collection
Death ascertainment
Death files
Epidemiologic method
Vital statistics
Journal
Dialogues in health
ISSN: 2772-6533
Titre abrégé: Dialogues Health
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9918506184906676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
medline:
4
4
2023
entrez:
3
4
2023
pubmed:
4
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The National Death Index (NDI) by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Death Master File (DMF) by Social Security Administration are the two most broadly utilized data files for mortality outcomes in clinical research. NDI's high costs and the elimination of protected death records from California in DMF calls for alternative death files. The recently emerged California Non-Comprehensive Death File (CNDF) serves as an alternative source for vital statistics. This study aims to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of CNDF compared to NDI. Of 40,724 consented subjects in the Cedars-Sinai Cardiac Imaging Research Registry, 25,836 eligible subjects were queried through the NDI and the CDNF. After exclusion of death records to establish the same temporal and geographic availability of data, NDI identified 5,707 exact matches, while CNDF identified 6,051 death records. CNDF had a sensitivity of 94.3% and specificity of 96.4% compared to NDI exact matches. NDI also produced 581 close matches: all were verified as deaths by CNDF through matching death date and patient identifiers. Combining all NDI death records, CNDF had a sensitivity of 94.8% and specificity of 99.5%. CNDF is a reliable source for obtaining mortality outcomes and providing additional mortality validation. The use of CNDF can aid and replace the use of NDI in the state of California.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37007866
doi: 10.1016/j.dialog.2022.100015
pmc: PMC10065452
mid: NIHMS1861416
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001881
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of Interest The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Am J Epidemiol. 2009 Aug 15;170(4):515-8
pubmed: 19567777
Am J Epidemiol. 2000 Jul 15;152(2):107-11
pubmed: 10909946
Am J Epidemiol. 2011 Jul 1;174(1):90-8
pubmed: 21540319
Am J Epidemiol. 1990 Jan;131(1):160-8
pubmed: 2403466
Am J Public Health. 1992 Aug;82(8):1145-7
pubmed: 1636839
Am J Epidemiol. 2009 Apr 1;169(7):901-8
pubmed: 19251755
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Feb;13(2 Pt 2):616-623
pubmed: 31326497
Am J Public Health. 1984 Dec;74(12):1324-30
pubmed: 6507683
Am J Epidemiol. 1993 Jan 15;137(2):235-41
pubmed: 8452128
J Nucl Cardiol. 2022 Apr;29(2):840-852
pubmed: 33047282
Am J Epidemiol. 1985 May;121(5):754-66
pubmed: 4014167
Ann Epidemiol. 2002 Oct;12(7):462-8
pubmed: 12377423
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Feb;32(2):329-337
pubmed: 26467171
Eur J Epidemiol. 2004;19(8):751-60
pubmed: 15469032
Am J Epidemiol. 1995 Feb 1;141(3):242-50
pubmed: 7840098