首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>BMC Medicine >Comparison of physician-certified verbal autopsy with computer-coded verbal autopsy for cause of death assignment in hospitalized patients in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review
【2h】

Comparison of physician-certified verbal autopsy with computer-coded verbal autopsy for cause of death assignment in hospitalized patients in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review

机译:中低收入国家住院患者的医师认证的口头尸检与计算机编码的口头尸检的死因分配比较:系统评价

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

BackgroundComputer-coded verbal autopsy (CCVA) methods to assign causes of death (CODs) for medically unattended deaths have been proposed as an alternative to physician-certified verbal autopsy (PCVA). We conducted a systematic review of 19 published comparison studies (from 684 evaluated), most of which used hospital-based deaths as the reference standard. We assessed the performance of PCVA and five CCVA methods: Random Forest, Tariff, InterVA, King-Lu, and Simplified Symptom Pattern.
机译:背景技术已提出了计算机编码的语言尸检(CCVA)方法来为医学上无人照管的死亡分配死亡原因(COD),作为医师认证的语言尸检(PCVA)的替代方法。我们对19项已发表的比较研究(从​​684项评估中)进行了系统评价,其中大多数以医院死亡为参考标准。我们评估了PCVA和五种CCVA方法的性能:随机森林,关税,InterVA,King-Lu和简化症状模式。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号