Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 May 20;20(5):e0320466. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320466

Accuracy of information on the underlying cause of death: An analysis in Colombia during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021

Pablo Chaparro-Narváez 1, Jessika Alexandra Manrique Sanchez 1, Laura Berrio-Parra 1,*, Diana Carolina Urrego Ricaurte 1, Luis José Torres-Rojas 1, Nidia Patricia Orjuela Cantor 1, Claudia Patricia Mora Aguirre 1, Yesid Rojas Quevedo 1, Clara Suárez 1, Carlos Castañeda-Orjuela 1
Editor: Pasyodun Koralage Buddhika Mahesh2
PMCID: PMC12092014  PMID: 40393038

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to estimate the accuracy of the underlying Cause of Death (CoD) in the original death certificate, compared with a gold standard certificate based on information from clinical records and relatives, in population deceased in Colombia during 2021.

Methods

A sample size of 806 deaths across 92 municipalities in Colombia were estimated from the pool of 326,833 original certificates provided by the National Department of Statistics. A two-stage stratified random sample with replacement was employed for selection. Information from medical records of the deceased and, when necessary, interviews with relatives or witnesses were used to determine CoDs on the gold standard certificate. We analyzed and compared the underlying CoD of the original and standard death certificates to estimate the level of accuracy. Measures of concordance, patterns of false positives and negatives, and a kappa value were utilized as metrics to evaluate the death certificates quality.

Results

Information was obtained from 776, representing 96% of the desired sample. The concordance between original and gold standard certificates, categorized according to the ICD-10 chapters, was found in 74%. Higher levels of agreement were observed for “codes for special COVID-19 situations” (kappa = 0.84) and neoplasms (kappa = 0.84). Higher levels of agreement were observed for “codes for special COVID-19 situations” (kappa = 0.84) and neoplasms (kappa = 0.84). Overestimation was identified for “circulatory system diseases” (Chapter IX); “pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium” (Chapter XV); “signs, symptoms, and poorly defined conditions” (Chapter XVIII) and “diseases of the respiratory system” (Chapter X), while underestimation in “diseases of the genitourinary system” (Chapter XIV) among CoD. The most significant variations in the fraction of mortality due to specific CoDs corresponded to “codes for special situations COVID-19”.

Conclusions

The level of concordance between the original and gold standard death certificates was deemed adequate. However, improvements in the death certification process in Colombia are recommended, emphasizing the enhancement of training programs for health professionals.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted significant vulnerabilities within global Civil Registration and Vital Statistics (CRVS) systems, underscoring the urgent need to enhance these information frameworks [1]. Effective public policy formulation is contingent upon the availability of comprehensive, detailed, continuous, and real-time statistics related to population health and mortality -key outputs of a robust CRVS system [2]. Encompassing vital events such as births, deaths, and others, the CRVS system not only offers legal and administrative benefits to individuals and families but also provides critical statistical and administrative data for policymakers. The continuous registration of deaths, along with their causes, is fundamental for informed policymaking aimed at reducing premature mortality. In systems with inherent weaknesses, responses to health threats may be delayed, leading to a higher incidence of deaths. Conversely, timely mortality statistics enable ongoing surveillance, reflecting trends in death burden from various causes, and furnishing essential up-to-date data for informed decision-making [3].

Information on the Cause of Death (CoD) plays a pivotal role in guiding decision-making process, influencing policy direction, research funding priorities, and evaluating the effectiveness of public health interventions [4,5]. Seven Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) specifically rely on mortality data sourced from CRVS systems [6]. However, the accuracy and timeliness of data recorded on death certificates can exhibit significant variability [79]. Deficiencies in CoD information quality can stem from factors such as inadequate training among coders, unfamiliarity with causes [7,10]., time constraints [6], and a lack of supervision, leading to the frequent use of imprecise “garbage codes” [11]. Additionally, the implementation of effective procedures to consolidate information and adherence to statistical standards that transform individual codes into comprehensive national mortality statistics are crucial [8]. Notably, errors in CoD reporting are prevalent, with rates ranging from 39% to 61% in population-based studies and 32% to 45% in hospital studies [79].

In 2019, the reporting landscape in the Americas showed an estimated underreporting rate of 4%, with poorly defined or absent CoD codes at 3%, and garbage codes at 15%. in contrast, Colombia experienced higher underreporting at 13%, with poorly defined and ignored CoD at 1% and garbage codes at 11% [12].. Despite these statistics, studies on CoD in Colombia have been limited. Existing research has primarily focused on various aspects such as the knowledge of different CRVS actors [13], the overall quality of certification in general and cancer mortality [1416], the certification quality of live births and non-fetal deaths in hospitals [15,17]., and the quality of information for children under one year of age [18]

In Colombia, the National Statistics Institute (DANE by its Spanish acronym) is the governmental entity responsible for official statistics, including vital statistics. In the 1990s, the Civil Registry and Vital Statistics System (SRCEV by its Spanish acronym) was established to organize and standardize information on births and deaths. This system comprises the Civil Registry and Vital Statistics subsystems [19]. The Civil Registry subsystem registers and stores information about vital events and their characteristics for legal and administrative purposes [20]. The Vital Statistics subsystem collects, processes, and disseminates information on all births and deaths that occur in the country, enabling DANE to prepare official statistics of these events [19].

In 2019, the “National yearbook of vital statistics Colombia 2019” was published, dedicating a chapter to data quality, but excluding the quality of the underlying CoD information [21]. Studies evaluating basic CoD selected according with the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) coding rules, comparing certificates prepared by a certifier (original certification) with those by researchers (gold standard certification), are scarce [1718]. Shortcomings in both completeness and accuracy pose significant challenges to accurately accounting for deaths. Inaccurate identification of CoD can detrimentally affect the reliability of public health datasets, impeding both local and national response strategies. Our study aims to address this research gap by estimating the accuracy of underlying CoD in original death certificates compared with gold standard certificates based on information from clinical records and relatives for individuals who died in Colombia during 2021.

Methods

Study design and data collection

This cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted in Colombia in 2021. The death certificate in Colombia is designed according to international standards, especially in aspects related to the CoD. Doctors usually fill out the death certificate. DANE is responsible for coding and selecting the underlying CoD following ICD-10 standards. In 2022, DANE used the 2019 version of ICD-10 and employed the automated coding system IRIS. For records not coded by IRIS, manual assignment of the ICD-10 code was performed [22].

Sampling

Death data were obtained from individual death certificates consolidated in DANE’s mortality databases. Initially, DANE had compiled 326,833 non-fetal death certificates, excluding those related to violent causes certified by the Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, as well as municipalities without reported COVID-19 infections or deaths. The study focused on municipalities classified as large and intermediate, where COVID-19 cases were identified based on healthcare service complexity and the presence of more than 20 deaths associated with COVID-19, as determined from medical records or death certificate.

A two-stage stratified random sample with replacement was designed. In the first stage, it was considered conglomerates comprising 33 territorial entities of country’s administrative segmentation (32 departments and the district of Bogotá). In the second stage, from 770 municipalities, were 92 selected using random sampling with computer-generated random numbers, stratified by age groups (<60 years and ≥ 60 years). The estimated sample size was 806 deaths across the 92 municipalities, with a confidence level of 95%, an expected proportion of 70%, an estimation precision of 5%, and an effect of 2.5 (due to heterogeneity on the municipal mortality concentration). The minimum expected ratio is p, this varies according to the health system, local practices and the method used. It is reasonable to assume that, under appropriate conditions of quality and training in medical certification, the 70% ratio can be considered representative and feasible in systems that prioritize accuracy and consistency in mortality records [2326]. The program EPIDAT 4.2 was used for the random selection of the sample [27].

Data collection and analysis

Health professionals, including five doctors and a nurse with a postgraduate degree in epidemiology and public health collected and analyzed information from medical records. These professionals underwent prior training in the DANE’s vital statistics to ensure accurate CoDs assignment in the gold standard certificate. Medical records reviews took place between June 1, 2022, and September 30, 2022.

Identification data of the deceased from the original death certificate were used to request corresponding medical records from territorial health entities. Under strict supervision, health professionals extracted information to complete the underlying CoD in the gold standard certificate. To mitigate bias, these professionals did not have access to the original death certificate. In cases where medical records lacked sufficient information, interviews with relatives, acquaintances, or witnesses were conducted. Health professionals conducted telephone interviews with relatives or friends of the deceased in cases where the clinical history was not available, or the information recorded was insufficient to determine the CoD. During these interviews, they were asked about the events that occurred during the illness or the situation that led to the person’s death.

An expert nosologist coded the CoD assigned by the health personnel, selecting the underlying CoD based on ICD-10 norms used in Colombia`s official mortality statistics. For the study period, the 2019 version of ICD-10 was used [28]. There was no CoD adjudicating committee; instead, the CoDs were directly collected from the medical records by the research team. This gold standard certificate, based on detailed medical records, was deemed the most accurate source.

Statistical analysis

The underlying CoDs in the original (prepared by the certifiers) and gold standard (prepared by the researchers) certificates were compared at the ICD-10-chapter level and mortality tabulation list 2–80 causes. The overall concordance rate between the underlying CoD in both certificates, the percentage of positive concordance (number of cases in which both data sets report a positive result), false positive rate, and false negative rate were calculated. Additionally, the kappa coefficient was computed to measure the degree of agreement beyond chance [2932]. The 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for these metrics were also estimated. The formulas used for these calculations are as follows (Table 1):

Table 1. Methods of calculating different indicators of agreement.

Reviewer underlying cause
Diagnosis X Diagnosis X
Original underlying cause Diagnosis X a B
The others c D
Overall Concordance Rate = (a+d)/(a+b+c+d)
False Positive Rate = b/(a+b)
False Negative Rate = c/(c+d)
Kappa Coefficient = (Po  Pe)/(1  Pe)

Where:

Po (Observed percentage of agreement) = (a+d)/(a+b+c+d)
Pe (expected percentage of agreement) = ([a+c]/[a+b+c+d]) * ([a+b]/[a+b+c+d])+([b+d]/[a+b+ c+d) * ([c+d]/[a+b+c+d])

False positive and false negative percentages were used to quantify the degree of overdiagnosis and under-certification, respectively [33]. The kappa statistic is a widely used measure for evaluating validity and reliability [32], accounting for occurring by chance between observers of the underlying CoD in the gold standard and the original certificates [33]. Kappa values greater than 0.81 were considered almost perfect, 0.61 to 0.80 as high, 0.41 to 0.60 as moderate, 0.21 to 0.40 as acceptable, 0.00 to 0.20 as low, and those < 0.00 as poor [30]. The Change in Cause-Specific Mortality Fraction (CCSMF) was calculated to assess the impact of discrepancies between the original and gold standard certificates [34].

CCSMF=CaSMFSCaSMFOCaSMFO×100

Where CaSMF = cause specific mortality fraction, O = “original” certificate, S = “standard” certificate.

CaSMF=Number of deaths due to one specific causeTotal number of deaths

To further assess variations in the underlying CoDs between original and gold standard certificates, the Bland-Altman diagram was employed. This visual tool helps in identifying any systematic differences between the two sets of data. The collected information was processed using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and analyzed using Stata, version 12.0.

Ethical considerations

The project received approval from the Committee on Ethics and Research Methodologies of the National Institute of Health (CEMIN, by Spanish acronym). Anonymized mortality databases from DANE were accessed, and health professionals extracted information from medical records without reviewing the original death certificates to prevent bias. CEMIN authorized the review of medical records without Informed consent, considering the National Institute of Health’s role as the national health authority. These documents were securely held by research team and the respective territorial entities.

To address gaps in the medical records, researchers contacted the residences of the deceased, aiming to speak with a relative or acquaintance. Researchers identified themselves as representatives of the National Institutes of Health, explained the study’s purpose, and outlined the protocol. Consent was obtained from participants for their involvement in the study and for the audio recording of the conversation. If participants declined, they were thanked, and a follow-up call was made. If audio recording was not permitted, permission was sought to take written notes.

During the interviews, specific questions regarding gaps in the deceased’s medical history were asked. Participants were informed that they could decline to answer any question without providing a reason. Ensuring ethical standards and maintaining participant confidentiality throughout the research process was paramount, necessitating rigorous anonymization of the data. Interview notes and audio recordings were stored in the INS institutional cloud, password-protected, and accessible only to project researchers. This process was endorsed by CEMIN, ensuring ethical standards and the protection of participants’ confidentiality throughout the research process.

Results

In our sample of 776 deaths, stratification was conducted by department, municipality, and age, ensuring a representative cross-section of Colombia`s total mortality. Despite a nominal 4% loss in the sample, this minimal reduction did not introduce any distortion to the study’s findings. The mean age of death was 65 years (range: 0–98 years; median: 68 years). Most deaths occurred in urban areas (94.2%) and hospitals (78.5%). The determination of CoD primarily relied on medical records (93.9%), with 1% of the sample drawing from a multifaceted array of sources such as medical records, laboratory tests, and interviews with relatives or witnesses (Table 2). Overall, the agreement on the underlying CoD, based on ICD-10 chapter, was robust at 74% (575 deaths), whereas the mortality rate based on ICD-10 mortality tabulation list 2 was 63.4% (492 deaths correct classified) (S1 Table).

Table 2. Characteristics of analyzed deaths. Colombia, 2021.

Women
(n = 352)
Men
(n = 424)
Total
(n = 776)
n % n % n %
Age
Mean age at death (years) 65.9 (SD: 21.4) 64.4 (SD: 20.9) 65.1 (SD: 21.1)
 0–9 12 3.4 15 3.5 27 3.5
 10–19 2 0.6 6 1,4 8 1.0
 20–29 10 2.8 6 1.4 16 2.1
 30–39 15 4.3 21 5.0 36 4.6
 40–49 22 6.3 31 7.3 53 6.8
 50–59 42 11.9 62 14.6 104 13.4
 60–69 80 22.7 83 19.6 163 21.0
 70–79 68 19.3 97 22.9 165 21.3
 80+ 101 28.7 103 24.3 204 26.3
Area of death
 Urban 334 43.0 397 51.2 731 94.2
 Rural 18 2.3 27 3.5 27 5.8
Place of death
Hospital/clinic 268 34.5 341 43.9 609 78.5
Health center/post 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.3
Home 79 10.2 75 9.7 154 19.8
Workplace 0 0.0 3 0.4 3 0.4
Another place 4 0.5 4 0.5 8 1.0
Determination of CoD
Necropsy 0 0.0 3 0.4 3 0.4
Clinical record 337 43.4 392 50.5 729 93.9
Interview to relatives or witnesses 32 4.1 40 5.2 72 9.3
Multisource 6 0.8 1 0.1 7 0.9

SD: standard deviation.

Stratification and agreement analysis

The stratification of the underlying CoD between original and gold standard death certificates is noteworthy (Table 3). In 18 instances where the gold standard certificate identified “COVID-19” as the underlying CoD, the original certificate asserted “diseases of the respiratory system” (Chapter X). Conversely, in six cases where the gold standard certificate pinpointed “respiratory system diseases” (Chapter X), the original certificate indicated “COVID-19” (Chapter XXII). Notable discrepancies were also observed in eight cases where the gold standard certificate specified “circulatory system diseases” (Chapter IX) as the underlying CoD, while the original certificate pointed to “endocrine diseases” (Chapter IV). Additionally, ten cases with “neoplasms” (Chapter II) as the gold standard certificate’s CoD, the original certificate classified them as “circulatory system diseases” (Chapter IX).

Table 3. Cross tabulation of underlying CoD (ICD-10) in original and gold standard death certificates, Colombia, 2021.

Original death certificated
ICD-10 chapter I II III IV V VI IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XX XXII Total
Standard death certificate I 15 1 2 2 2 1 23
II 1 109 1 10 3 1 1 1 1 128
III 5 2 7
IV 1 17 5 2 25
V 2 1 3
VI 1 13 3 2 19
IX 4 1 8 3 130 6 5 1 4 1 1 3 5 172
X 1 3 1 3 1 8 26 1 1 1 6 52
XI 1 1 2 5 2 24 35
XII 1 1 1 3
XIII 1 3 1 5
XIV 1 2 5 3 1 1 1 5 1 20
XV 0 0
XVI 2 1 6 1 10
XVII 2 1 6 9
XVIII 1 3 1 0 5
XX 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 13
XXII 2 2 2 7 18 1 1 2 212 247
Total 24 123 7 38 4 19 185 57 40 2 6 13 2 7 9 7 2 231 776

I: Infections; II: Neoplasms; III: Blood diseases; IV: Endocrine diseases; V: Mental disorders; VI: Nervous system diseases; IX: Circulatory diseases; X: Respiratory diseases; XI: Digestive diseases; XII: Skin diseases; XIII: Osteomuscular tissue and connective tissue diseases; XIV: Genitourinary diseases; XV: Pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium; XVI: Perinatal conditions; XVII: Congenital anomalies; XVIII: Signs, symptoms and poorly defined conditions; XX: External causes; XXII: COVID-19.

Causes of death

Most CoDs reporting “neoplasms” (Chapter II) or “codes for special situations (COVID-19)” (Chapter XXII) exhibited high consistency between the two sources (Table 4). However, conditions such as “diseases of the genitourinary system” (Chapter XIV) showed elevated rates of false positives (Kappa 0.29; 95% Cl: 0.08–0.50), while “diseases of the circulatory system”(Chapter IX) (Kappa 0.65; 95% Cl: 0.58–0.71), “codes for special situations (COVID-19)” (Chapter XXII) (Kappa 0.84; 95% Cl: 0.79–0.88), and “diseases of the respiratory system”(Chapter X) (Kappa 0.44; 95% Cl: 0.32–0.56) displayed substantial false negatives (Table 3). The greatest variations were for “codes for special situations (COVID-19)” (chapter XXII) (6.9%), “diseases of the circulatory system” (Chapter IX) (-7.0%) and “endocrine diseases, nutritional and metabolic” (Chapter IV) (-34.2%).

Table 4. Underlying CoD (ICD-10) agreement metrics between original and gold standard death certificates. Colombia, 2021.

ICD-10
chapter
Death numbers Match between certificates False positive % False negative % Kappa SE Kappa CI 95% Change in Cause-Specific Mortality Fraction (%)
Original (O) Standard
(S)
LL UL
I 24 23 15 37.5 1.1 0.63 0.084 0.46 0.79 -4.2
II 123 128 109 11.4 2.9 0.84 0.027 0.79 0.90 4.1
III 7 7 5 28.6 0.3 0.71 0.138 0.44 0.98 0.0
IV 38 25 17 55.3 1.1 0.52 0.078 0.37 0.67 -34.2
V 4 3 2 50.0 0.1 0.57 0.13 1.00 -25.0
VI 19 19 13 31.6 0.8 0.68 0.088 0.50 0.85 0.0
IX 185 172 130 29.7 7.1 0.65 0.033 0.58 0.71 -7.0
X 57 52 26 54.4 3.6 0.44 0.062 0.32 0.56 -8.8
XI 40 35 24 40.0 1.5 0.62 0.067 0.49 0.75 -12.5
XII 2 3 1 50.0 0.3 0.40 0.278 0.00 0.94 50.0
XIII 6 5 3 50.0 0.3 0.54 0.182 0.19 0.90 -16.7
XIV 13 20 5 61.5 2.0 0.29 0.105 0.08 0.50 53.8
XV 2 0 0 100.0 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 -100.0
XVI 7 10 6 14.3 0.5 0.70 0.127 0.45 0.95 42.9
XVII 9 9 6 33.3 0.4 0.66 0.129 0.41 0.92 0.0
XVIII 7 5 0 100.0 0.7 -0.01 0.002 -0.01 0.00 -28.6
XX 2 13 1 50.0 1.6 0.13 0.119 0.00 0.36 550.0
XXII 231 247 212 8.2 6.4 0.84 0.021 0.79 0.88 6.9

SE: standard error LL: lower limit UL: upper limit.

I: Infections; II: Neoplasms; III: Blood diseases; IV: Endocrine diseases; V: Mental disorders; VI: Nervous system diseases; IX: Circulatory diseases; X: Respiratory diseases; XI: Digestive diseases; XII: Skin diseases; XIII: Osteomuscular tissue and connective tissue diseases; XIV: Genitourinary diseases; XV: Pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium; XVI: Perinatal conditions; XVII: Congenital anomalies; XVIII: Signs, symptoms and poorly defined conditions; XX: External causes; XXII: COVID-19.

The proportion of agreement for most CoDs remained consistent between genders, in men was 73% (311 deaths) and in women was 75% (264 deaths). Notably, “neoplasms” (Chapter II) (Kappa 0.82; 95% Cl: 0.73–0.89 and Kappa 0.87; 95% Cl: 0.80–0.94, respectively) and “codes for special situations (COVID-19)” (Chapter XXII) (Kappa 0.83; 95% Cl: 0.77–0.88 and Kappa 0.84; 95% Cl: 0.77–0.91, respectively), demonstrated almost perfect concordance in both genders. However, “circulatory system diseases” (Chapter IX) exhibited higher percentages of false positive (Kappa 0.60; 95% Cl: 0.49–0.69 and Kappa 0.68; 95% Cl: 0.60–0.76, respectively) (Table 5).

Table 5. Underlying CoD (ICD-10) agreement metrics between original and gold standard death certificates by sex. Colombia, 2021.

Men Women
ICD-10 chapter Death numbers Match between certificates False positive % False negative % Kappa Kappa CI95% Change in Cause-Specific Mortality Fraction (%) Death numbers Match between certificates False positive % False negative % Kappa Kappa
CI95%
Change in Cause-Specific Mortality Fraction (%)
Original (O) Standard (S) LL LS Original (O) Standard (S) LL LS
I 13 10 8 1.21 20.00 0.69 0.47 0.91 -23.1 11 13 7 1.18 46.15 0.57 0.33 0.81 18.2
II 64 64 54 2.78 15.63 0.82 0.73 0.89 0.0 59 64 55 1.39 14.06 0.87 0.80 0.94 8.5
III 3 3 2 0.24 33.33 0.66 0.23 1.00 0.0 4 4 3 0.29 25.00 0.75 0.41 1.00 0.00
IV 18 8 5 3.13 37.50 0.37 0.13 0.61 -55.6 20 17 12 2.39 29.41 0.63 0.44 0.82 -15.0
V 1 0 0 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 -100.0 3 3 2 0.29 33.33 0.66 0.23 1.00 0.0
VI 10 10 6 0.97 40.00 0.59 0.33 0.85 0.0 9 9 7 0.58 22.22 0.77 0.56 0.99 0.0
IX 72 78 50 6.36 35.90 0.60 0.49 0.69 8.3 113 94 80 12.79 14.89 0.68 0.60 0.76 -16.8
X 37 28 16 5.30 42.86 0.45 0.29 0.61 -24.3 20 20 10 3.01 50.00 0.47 0.27 0.68 0.0
XI 20 18 13 1.72 27.78 0.67 0.49 0.84 -10.0 20 17 11 2.69 35.29 0.57 0.37 0.77 -15.0
XII 1 1 0 0.24 100.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.0 1 2 1 0.00 50.00 0.67 0.05 1.00 100.0
XIII 2 1 1 0.24 0.00 0.67 0.05 1.00 -50.0 4 4 2 0.57 50.00 0.49 0.07 0.92 0.0
XIV 8 14 3 1.22 78.57 0.25 0.01 0.50 75.0 5 6 2 0.87 66.67 0.35 -0.01 0.72 20.0
XV 0 0 0 0.00 2 0 0 0.57 0.00 -100.0
XVI 5 7 4 0.24 42.86 0.66 0.35 0.97 40.0 2 3 2 0.00 33.33 0.80 0.41 1.00 50.0
XVII 6 6 4 0.48 33.33 0.66 0.35 0.97 0.0 3 3 2 0.29 33.33 0.66 0.23 1.00 0.0
XVIII 5 3 0 1.19 100.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 -40.0 2 2 0 0.57 100.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.0
XX 2 8 1 0.24 87.50 0.19 -0.14 0.52 300.0 0 5 0 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
XXII 157 165 144 5.02 12.73 0.83 0.77 0.88 5.1 74 82 68 2.22 17.07 0.84 0.77 0.91 10.8

I: Infections; II: Neoplasms; III: Blood diseases; IV: Endocrine diseases; V: Mental disorders; VI: Nervous system diseases; IX: Circulatory diseases; X: Respiratory diseases; XI: Digestive diseases; XII: Skin diseases; XIII: Osteomuscular tissue and connective tissue diseases; XIV: Genitourinary diseases; XV: Pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium; XVI: Perinatal conditions; XVII: Congenital anomalies; XVIII: Signs, symptoms and poorly defined conditions; XX: External causes; XXII: COVID-19.

In terms of CSMF attributed to specific CoD, notable variations were identified in both men and women, with the most significant discrepancies observed in “codes for special situations (COVID-19)” (Chapter XXII). Moreover, noteworthy shifts were noted among men, specifically in “endocrine diseases” (Chapter IV) with an increase of + 2.2%, and “respiratory system diseases” (Chapter X) also exhibiting a rise of + 2.2%. Conversely, women demonstrated substantial variations, particularly in “circulatory system diseases” (Chapter IX) where there was a marked increase of + 5.0%.

The Bland-Altman diagram, illustration the absolute difference in underlying CoD between the original and gold standard death certificates (Fig 1), indicates a mean difference was 0 (with limits of agreement: 3.5 to -3.5). The variable plotted in the Bland-Altman diagram was the comparison of underlying CoD grouped by ICD-10 chapter from both the original and gold standard death certificates.

Fig 1. Bland-Altman plot.

Fig 1

Difference between original and gold standard death certificates for underlying CoD.

Discussion

This study explores the complexities of the death certification process in Colombia, offering valuable insights into the accuracy of Cause of Death (CoD) reporting. It was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which could have affected the accuracy of death certification due to the high volume of deaths and the strain on healthcare systems. By examining a substantial sample size of 776 randomly selected death certificates from 2021, the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our research employed a meticulous retrospective review, drawing upon information documented in medical records. The collaboration with health professionals adept in death certification preparation and CoD assignment added depth to our analysis. The overall agreement between both the original and gold standard death certificates for the underlying CoD information, categorized according to the ICD-10 chapter, stood at a commendable 74%. Further stratification by gender revealed similar accordance in women (75%) compared to men (73%). These findings underscore the nuance landscape of CoD estimation in Colombia, where both overestimation and underestimation contribute to the complexity of mortality statistics.

Comparing our results globally, the accuracy of the underlying CoD in our study surpassed figures reported in Thailand (37%) [35] and Bangladesh (54%) [36], signifying a comparatively higher precision in Colombia. However, it fell short of the 81% observed in Valparaíso and Metropolitan region in Chile [37]. Disparities in age demographics and the unique challenges posed by the ongoing pandemic caution against direct comparisons, emphasizing the need for context-specific assessments.

Our study highlighted notable overestimations and underestimations in specific CoD categories. High concordance was evident for “neoplasms” (Chapter II) and “codes for special situations (COVID-19)” (Chapter XXII), which collectively constituted 33% of deaths in Colombia during 2021. Overestimation (a high percentages of false negatives and negative values in the CSMF) was identified for “circulatory system diseases” (Chapter IX); “pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium” (Chapter XV); “signs, symptoms, and poorly defined conditions” (Chapter XVIII) and “diseases of the respiratory system” (Chapter X), while underestimation (a high percentages of CSMF) in “diseases of the genitourinary system” (Chapter XIV) among CoD.

The high level of concordance for deaths related to neoplasms, evidenced in the present research, coincides with an earlier study, where 93% of mortality from cancer in Colombia was well certified [38]. A Mexican analysis showed that some types of cancer present a better concordance [39]. The high concordance with COVID-19 diagnoses could be due to the standardized form that this new diagnosis was added to the list, as it includes information on the condition that started the causal chain of death [40].

The death certificate may have limitations as a source of mortality data when estimating deaths due to rare events because they are not certified. Underreporting of these events may underestimate the true burden of the disease [41]. The capacity of ICD-10 to track deaths from rare events is limited, so little is reported in mortality studies [42]. Furthermore, they are not recorded because proximal causes of death mask more distal causes of death, training to complete death certificates is insufficient, opinions on how comorbidities affect the final CoD are disparate [41], and lack of access to medical care. For the results of the study to be generalizable, the sample must be representative of the population; however, for rare events, it may be difficult to obtain a representative sample due to the low frequency of these events.

With few observations, the Kappa value should be interpreted with caution because inherent variability can affect its precision. With a small number of observations, it can provide valuable information on the agreement between measurement methods. Furthermore, its confidence interval allows us to get an idea of the variability associated with the result [43].

The discrepancies observed in CoD assignment can be contextualized within the broader challenges of death certification in Colombia. A substantial proportion of death certificates (79%) were prepared in health services by doctors, in some cases by health professionals with limited experience in this specific task or with a greater workload, which influences in not carefully reviewing the medical records to formulate the CoD sequence [29]. Regarding deaths at home, some lack complete data in the medical records, experiencing greater difficulty in determining CoDs, and relatives may not provide enough information. In rural areas, certification is carried out by other untrained health professionals, introducing possible errors in the certification process [30].

Certification disparities exist between the certification of violent and non-violent deaths. Non-violent deaths are certified by the treating physician or other health professionals authorized to certify them, and violent deaths are certified by the forensic doctor [31]. In terms of legal connotations of death certificates, it is true that the certifier must recognize the potential effects that the logical elaboration of the CoD will have. Using certain CoDs may provide information that could be used to challenge, reduce, or deny life insurance benefits. Additionally, the death certificate is rarely used as the sole source of information for legal or insurance purposes. Nevertheless, to reduce or avoid these situations, it is crucial to obtain correct and accurate information at all times [32].

This analysis has limitations. First, the determination of CoD was restricted to the information available in medical records, which may also be imperfect. Second, in deaths where the clinical documentation was incomplete or in the event of a death that occurred at home, relatives or acquaintances of the deceased were interviewed, presenting possible recall bias. Third, potential observer bias in the health professionals who analyzed the medical records, due to the subjectivity. However, the risk of bias is low because the health professionals who analyzed the medical records were trained and were under permanent supervision in the information collection process. Fourth, the use of broad categories at the ICD-10-chapter level could limit the identification of inaccuracies and the specificity of the analysis. To mitigate this situation, a more detailed analysis was included employing ICD-10 mortality tabulation list 2–80 causes plus COVID-19. This study had methodological strengths such as the use of a gold standard death certificate, completed by trained health professionals. Additionally, it was based on solid criteria for the selection of cases in multiple jurisdictions at the national level, relying on complete medical records or complemented with information given by relatives, representing a more precise analysis of the death certification process in Colombia. The differences between some of the CoDs identified between the original and gold standard death certificates are associated with the heterogeneity of the territories, where the death certification process varies depending on factors such as the lack of training of health professionals, incomplete medical records, difficulties in determining the CoDs, or internet access [15,22,31].

In conclusion, our study sheds light on the commendable quality of underlying CoD information in Colombian death certificates, reflecting a 74% concordance with the gold standard death certificate. On the other hand, the general kappa statistic by sex was high for the CoD of infections, digestive diseases, perinatal conditions, congenital anomalies and signs, symptoms, and poorly defined conditions; and almost perfect for neoplasms and COVID-19.

The accuracy and quality of the information provided by death certificates cannot be understated, as they serve as a valuable source of public health information [44]. The information they provide supports public health authorities in making decisions. In this sense, the continuing education of health personnel, adequate training in the university curriculum and in the workplace, formalized processes for reviewing death certifications, the use of automated systems to record the cause(s) of death and selecting the underlying CoD can improve accuracy in death certification [8,35,44,45].

To enhance the accuracy of the death certification process, we recommend robust educational and training initiatives for health professionals, the development of comprehensive guidelines for death certificate preparation, and ongoing monitoring in health services to identify and address information quality issue. These measures are imperative for refining mortality statistics and ensuring the reliability of CoD data in the Colombian context.

Supporting information

S1 File. Appendix telephone interview guide.

(DOCX)

pone.0320466.s001.docx (16KB, docx)
S2 File. Database accuracy: we confirm that uploaded data files contain no data which could be used to identify study participants.

(XLSX)

pone.0320466.s002.xlsx (717.1KB, xlsx)
S1 Table. Underlying CoD agreement metrics between original and gold standard death certificates according to ICD-10 mortality list 2. Colombia, 2021.

(DOCX)

pone.0320466.s003.docx (26.8KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Dr. Richard Garfield of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for his valuable technical support during the research development.

Data Availability

All relevant data are in the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The CDC funded the research, providing financial support for the researchers and to do the field work necessary to collect the information. URL: https://www.cdc.gov/index.htm The CDC did not pay a salary directly to the researchers. The financing was made to the public budget of the National Institute of Health. This study does not have grant numbers per author because it is not a Grant. "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

References

  • 1.AbouZahr C, Bratschi MW, Cercone E, Mangharam A, Savigny DD, Dincu I, et al. The COVID-19 Pandemic: Effects on Civil Registration of Births and Deaths and on Availability and Utility of Vital Events Data. Am J Public Health. 2021;111(6):1123–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.AbouZahr C, de Savigny D, Mikkelsen L, Setel PW, Lozano R, Nichols E, et al. Civil registration and vital statistics: progress in the data revolution for counting and accountability. Lancet. 2015;386(10001):1373–85. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60173-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.AbouZahr C, Mathenge G, Brøndsted Sejersen T, Macfarlane SB. Civil Registration and Vital Statistics: A Unique Source of Data for Policy. En: Macfarlane SB, AbouZahr C, editores. The Palgrave Handbook of Global Health Data Methods for Policy and Practice [Internet]. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK; 2019. [citado 30 de agosto de 2023]. p. 125-44. Disponible en: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/978-1-137-54984-6_7 [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ling SM, Warner M, Anderson RN. Opportunities to Enhance the Utility of Cause of Death Information From Death Certificates. Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S1):S42–4. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2022.306722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Merlin JS, Wachterman MW, Becker WC, Bohnert ASB. Serious Illness and Limitations of Death Certificate-Based Data: Urgent Lessons From the Opioid Epidemic. Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S1):S36–8. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2021.306409 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.IDRC-CRDI. Centre of Excellence for CRVS Systems. 2019. Four ways CRVS systems can support the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Disponible en: https://crvssystems.ca/blog/four-ways-crvs-systems-can-support-un-sustainable-development-goals. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Filippatos G, Andriopoulos P, Panoutsopoulos G, Zyga S, Souliotis K, Gennimata V, et al. The quality of death certification practice in Greece. Hippokratia. 2016;20(1):19–25. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hart JD, Sorchik R, Bo KS, Chowdhury HR, Gamage S, Joshi R, et al. Improving medical certification of cause of death: effective strategies and approaches based on experiences from the Data for Health Initiative. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):74. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01519-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.França E, de Abreu DX, Rao C, Lopez AD. Evaluation of cause-of-death statistics for Brazil, 2002-2004. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37(4):891–901. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyn121 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mikkelsen L, Phillips DE, AbouZahr C, Setel PW, de Savigny D, Lozano R, et al. A global assessment of civil registration and vital statistics systems: monitoring data quality and progress. Lancet. 2015;386(10001):1395–406. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60171-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Iburg KM, Mikkelsen L, Adair T, Lopez AD. Are cause of death data fit for purpose? evidence from 20 countries at different levels of socio-economic development. PLoS One. 2020;15(8):e0237539. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237539 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.OPS. Portal de indicadores básicos. 2022. Visualizaciones. Mapa de indicadores. Disponible en: https://opendata.paho.org/es/indicadores-basicos/visualizaciones [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chaparro-Narváez PE, Jiménez-Serna MM, De La Hoz Restrepo FP. Identificación de los conocimientos de calidad de la información de mortalidad en Bogotá. Rev salud pública. 2017; 19(6):766-71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cendales R, Pardo C. Quality of death certification in Colombia. cm. 2018; 121–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 15.Montalvo-Arce C A, Kelly-Forbes Y S, Secretaría de Salud San Andrés. Evaluación de la calidad de los certificados de defunción del Hospital Amor de Patria, de San Andrés Islas, Colombia, en 2014. Rev Fac Nac Salud Pública. 2018;36(3):61–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Cendales R, Pardo C. La calidad de certificación de la mortalidad en Colombia, 2002-2006. Revista de Salud Pública. 2011; 13(2):229–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Rodríguez García J, Vega Landaeta AP, Jaramillo LF, Fernández Ortiz Y, Suarez Morales ZB, Vásquez Candia ME. Calidad en la certificación de mortalidad y natalidad en un hospital universitario, Colombia año 2014. RGYPS. 2019; 18(36):1–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Chaparro Narváez PE. Calidad de la información de mortalidad en menores de un año en Bogotá durante 2005 [Internet]. Bogotá, D.C; Universidad Nacional de Colombia; 2013. Disponible en: https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/bitstream/handle/unal/20099/597600.2013.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [Google Scholar]
  • 19.DANE. Producción Estadística PES [Internet]. 2023. Disponible en: https://www.dane.gov.co/files/investigaciones/fichas/gobierno/DSO-EDI-MET-001-V5.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 20.DANE2022Bogotá D.C.Estadísticas Vitales – EEVV. Cifras Definitivas año 2021p. 46Disponible en
  • 21.DANE. Anuario nacional de estadísticas vitales Colombia 2019 [Internet]. Bogotá; 2021. p. 217. Disponible en: https://www.dane.gov.co/files/investigaciones/poblacion/anuario-EEVV-2019/anuario-nacional-de-estadisticas-vitales-colombia-2019.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 22. DANE. Estadísticas Vitales (EEVV). Defunciones fetales y no fetales 4to trimestre 2023pr, acumulado 2023pr, año corrido 2024pr [Internet]. Bogotá; 2024. p. 51. Disponible en: https://www.dane.gov.co/files/operaciones/EEVV/bol-EEVV-Defunciones-IVtrim2023.pdff [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Chung E, Shin H, Shin J, Nam H, Ryu S, Im J, et al. Accuracy of the Registered Cause of Death in a County and its Related Factors. J Preventive Medicine and Public Health. 2002; 35(2):153–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.McGivern L, Shulman L, Carney JK, Shapiro S, Bundock E. Death Certification Errors and the Effect on Mortality Statistics. Public Health Rep. 2017; 132(6):669–75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lucero M, Riley ID, Hazard RH, Sanvictores D, Tallo V, Dumaluan DGM, et al. Assessing the quality of medical death certification: a case study of concordance between national statistics and results from a medical record review in a regional hospital in the Philippines. Popul Health Metr. 2018;16(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s12963-018-0178-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Dash SK, Behera BK, Patro S. Accuracy in certification of cause of death in a tertiary care hospital--a retrospective analysis. J Forensic Leg Med. 2014;24:33–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2014.03.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.EPIDAT - Consellería de Sanidade - Servizo Galego de Saúde [Internet]. [citado 19 de diciembre de 2024]. Disponible en: https://www.sergas.es/Saude-publica/EPIDAT?idioma=es [Google Scholar]
  • 28.DANE. Estadísticas vitales nacimientos y defunciones - Anexos. 2024. Informacion metodologica. Disponible en: https://www.dane.gov.co/index.php/estadisticas-por-tema/demografia-y-poblacion/nacimientos-y-defunciones/estadisticas-vitales-nacimientos-y-defunciones-informacion-metodologica [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Nielsen GP, Björnsson J, Jonasson JG. The accuracy of death certificates. Implications for health statistics. Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histopathol. 1991;419(2):143–6. doi: 10.1007/BF01600228 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74. doi: 10.2307/2529310 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Rosamond WD, Chambless LE, Sorlie PD, Bell EM, Weitzman S, Smith JC, et al. Trends in the Sensitivity, Positive Predictive Value, False-Positive Rate, and Comparability Ratio of Hospital Discharge Diagnosis Codes for Acute Myocardial Infarction in Four US Communities, 1987-2000. American J Epidemiol. 2004;160(12):1137-46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Szklo M, Nieto FJ. Epidemiology: beyond the basics. 2 ed. Sudbury, Mass; Jones and Bartlett; 2007. 489 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Moussa MA, Shafie MZ, Khogali MM, el-Sayed AM, Sugathan TN, Cherian G, et al. Reliability of death certificate diagnoses. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(12):1285–95. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90094-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rampatige R, Gamage S, Peiris S, Lopez AD. Assessing the reliability of causes of death reported by the Vital Registration System in Sri Lanka: medical records review in Colombo. Health Inf Manag. 2013;42(3):20–8. doi: 10.1177/183335831304200302 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Washirasaksiri C, Raksasagulwong P, Chouriyagune C, Phisalprapa P, Srivanichakorn W. Accuracy and the factors influencing the accuracy of death certificates completed by first-year general practitioners in Thailand. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):478. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3289-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hazard RH, Chowdhury HR, Adair T, Ansar A, Quaiyum Rahman AM, Alam S, et al. The quality of medical death certification of cause of death in hospitals in rural Bangladesh: impact of introducing the International Form of Medical Certificate of Cause of Death. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):688. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2628-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Antini C, Rajs D, Muñoz-Quezada MT, Mondaca BAL, Heiss G. Reliability of cause of death coding: an international comparison. Cad Saude Publica. 2015;31(7):1473–82. doi: 10.1590/0102-311X00099814 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Hernández B, Ramírez-Villalobos D, Romero M, Gómez S, Atkinson C, Lozano R. Assessing quality of medical death certification: Concordance between gold standard diagnosis and underlying cause of death in selected Mexican hospitals. Popul Health Metr. 2011;9:38. doi: 10.1186/1478-7954-9-38 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Armstrong D. The COVID-19 pandemic and cause of death. Sociol Health Illn. 2021;43(7):1614–26. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.13347 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Falasinnu T, Rossides M, Chaichian Y, Simard JF. Do Death Certificates Underestimate the Burden of Rare Diseases? The Example of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Mortality, Sweden, 2001-2013. Public Health Rep. 2018;133(4):481–8. doi: 10.1177/0033354918777253 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Mazzucato M, Visonà Dalla Pozza L, Minichiello C, Toto E, Vianello A, Facchin P. Estimating mortality in rare diseases using a population-based registry, 2002 through 2019. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2023;18(1):362. doi: 10.1186/s13023-023-02944-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sim J, Wright CC. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther. 2005;85(3):257–68. doi: 10.1093/ptj/85.3.257 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gill JR, DeJoseph ME. The Importance of Proper Death Certification During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA. 2020;324(1):27–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.9536 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Schuppener LM, Olson K, Brooks EG. Death Certification: Errors and Interventions. Clin Med Res. 2020;18(1):21–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Alipour J, Karimi A, Miri-Aliabad G, Baloochzahei-Shahbakhsh F, Payandeh A, Sharifian R. Quality of death certificates completion for COVID-19 cases in the southeast of Iran: A cross-sectional study. Health Sci Rep. 2022;5(5):e802. doi: 10.1002/hsr2.802 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Andres Mauricio Acevedo-Melo

1 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-33548Validity of the information on the basic cause of death: an analysis in Colombia during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Berrio-Parra,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Your article addresses a crucial issue concerning the disparities between causes of death (CoD) in death certificates and other sources including clinical records, which form the basis for much epidemiological and demographical data, influencing healthcare policy and decision-making in Colombia and beyond. While the study's objective is clear, the manuscript lacks sufficient detail to meet PLOS ONE's publication criteria. I am outlining the main issues that must be addressed for the manuscript to be considered suitable for publication in our journal.

1. Clear definition of PICO: Please restate the PICO structure research question clearly, focusing on the "reference gold standard CoD source" and the "original CoD source." Provide detailed selection criteria, sampling methods, and information about the study population. Revise all calculations thoroughly to ensure accurate comparisons, and report the main outcomes according to the planned methods to prevent spin bias.

2. Reproducible methods and research integrity compliance: To enhance reproducibility, provide full details about the CoD adjudicating committee and methods for determining causes of death.

3. Conclusions supported by data: Ensure that the discussion section addresses the implications of your research findings. Most importantly, suggest possible solutions that could improve accurate CoD adjudication, serving as a foundation for better healthcare policy and decision-making.

4. Reporting guidelines and community standards: Comply with the IMRaD structure for scientific articles, including quality content items for the abstract section. It is highly recommended to follow the abstract and full-text STROBE statements for observational studies.

5. Article is written in an intelligible fashion and is in standard English: Perform a thorough English copyediting and coherence revision to ensure clear understanding of the research. Present manuscript sections, tables, and figures in an organized and appropriately classified manner.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 15 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andres Mauricio Acevedo-Melo, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

""Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript presents several methodological concerns, including unclear processes for informed consent when accessing clinical records, potential legal ramifications due to the sensitive nature of death diagnoses, undisclosed qualifications of the data reviewers, and doubts about data anonymization and interview consent.

Reviewer #2: Although the document presents a well-known statistical technique, such as Kappa, it is nothing more than an academic exercise that in real life does not advance the possibility of correcting poorly coded deaths for better decision making.

Reviewer #3: Dear authors, the paper is interesting and analyzes a crucial problem. Nevertheless, I suggest you an additional effort to better clarify some aspects of the methods and to improve the consistency of data analysis.

General remarks

1. The declared objective of the paper (line 82-85) is to compare the ‘original certificate’ with a more accurate information, so the “standard certificate” should be always used as the gold standard in the statistical analysis. Nevertheless, some indicators are calculated taking the original certificate as a reference. For instance, given a cause of death J, “false negatives” are certificates classified as J with the gold standard and classified differently by the “original certificate” (which is under evaluation). “False positives” should be certificates in which the cause is other than J for the gold standard J for the “original certificate”. For example, for ICD10 chapter I, the false positives are 9 (from table 1), and the percentage of false positive 1.20. In the same way, “false negatives” are 8 and the percentage of false negative is 8/23*100= (34.8). (see table in the attached file). Nevertheless, in table 3 the percentages of false positives and false negatives are calculated using the original certificate as the gold standard. I suggest the authors to calculate the indicators using the standard certificate as the reference.

The indicator presented in line 114 seems to be calculated consistently with the objectives (standard certificate as gold standard) but the results presented in the last column of table 3 seem to have inverted signs.

In the discussion, line 207, the authors report that there is an underestimation of (for instance) circulatory system disease, but in reality, the original certificate overestimates these causes compared to the gold standard statistics.

What the authors think about this? It would be better to calculate the indicators using the standard certificate as gold standard.

2. I suggest to clarify the methods (Ln 95-106):

a. The trained health professionals, fill-in a new death form (part 1 and part 2 of the standard death certificate) or attribute a single cause-of-death?

b. Does the underlying cause codes for the original certificate correspond to those of official statistics for Colombia?

c. Is there a hierarchy of the medical documentation used for attributing the cause of death for the standard certificate? For deaths with more than one type of medical document (necropsy, clinical records, interview to relatives etc) only one is used for attributing the cause of death (as it appears from table 1)? In which order?

Additional specific topics:

1. I suggest to use the standard term “underlying cause” instead of “basic cause”.

2. When ICD chapters are mentioned, I would suggest to use also the chapter number, that would allow to find the results more easily in the tables.

3. Acronyms should be explained only once, the first time that are used (examples in line 28, CoD acronym described in the line above).

4. Ln 32-33. The sentence is not clear, what the author mean by “chart review” and “those who knew the medical history”? The terms are clear in the paper but they should be clear also in the abstract. Should it be “medical documentation” and “interviews to relatives”? Ln 33: the certificate considered “standard” is the one based on the medical documentation and interviews?

5. Ln 116-117, which variable and which points are plotted in the Bland-Altman diagram?

6. Ln 124-130 and table 1. Is the sample analyzed (776 cases) representative of the total deaths in Colombia (in terms of age and sex)? A sentence regarding this aspect and on the possible distortion due to the loss of some cases from the desired sample would be useful.

7. Ln 157-164. Confidence interval for Kappa should be used for comments and only robust values should be highlighted. For instance, results found for chapter “pregnancy childbirth and puerperium” are based only on two cases: it is not possible to evaluate false positives and Kappa is misleading. This should be taken into account.

8. Ln 167: The term “level of occurrence” is not clear. The table represents the Deaths by underlying cause according to the standard and original certificate and comparison of figures deriving from the two certificates.

9. Table 3. Last column (Change in cause – specific mortality fraction (%)): if the number of deaths for the original certificate is greater than for the standard, why the sign of the indicator is negative? According to the formula (line 114) I would expect a positive sign (and vice-versa for positive values).

10. Ln 171-177: This part presents the results for men and women (is it correct?), but it seems a repetition of the above comment. I suggest to mention that for most causes the results are comparable in the two genders and successively to focus only on chapters where there are differences.

11. Ln 177: Fig 1 is a table, it should be considered table 4.

12. Ln 182: The term validity in this context is not clear (the description of this table should be similar to table 2 which has similar content).

13. Figure 1 (should be table 4): the columns’ titles for women are different than for men and they have different order.

14. Ln 207-209: The authors report underestimation for ‘circulatory system disease’ but the results seem to show that the original death certificate overestimates them. The same occurs for ‘diseases of respiratory system’. This term should be used when the original death certificate, which is under evaluation, detects more cases than the standard. The use of the term underestimation considering the false negatives is misleading. I would suggest to use the CSMF, which is calculated but little used in comments.

15. Ln 210: The result about ‘pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium’ is very counterintuitive, since death certificates are often considered to underestimate maternal mortality, while examining additional documentation should allow to detect more accurately the cases. What is the authors’ opinion on this result? In addition, it is surprising that there are 7 cases classified in chapter XVII (Symptoms and signs) by the standard certificates which is based on additional documentation. Is there some explanation for these cases?

16. Ln 216-218: Could authors rephrase this sentence? It is not very clear.

17. Ln 224: Are there differences for deaths occurred in hospital compared to other places? Are there differences for source of determination of the cause of death? If possible, some comments could be provided in the discussion (even if not provided in the results).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Francesco Grippo

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: renamed_26069.docx

pone.0320466.s004.docx (15.9KB, docx)
Attachment

Submitted filename: ValidityCauseDeathAuthors.docx

pone.0320466.s005.docx (18.3KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2025 May 20;20(5):e0320466. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320466.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 1


26 Feb 2024

We gratefully received the revisor comments on our manuscript. Therefore, we made several adjustments to the manuscript addressing all aspects for its publication. In the response letter to the reviewers, we sent all the issues in which there were doubts, comments or suggestions. We uploaded a response letter to the reviewers, the revised manuscript with tracked changes, the manuscript, a figure, ethics committee approval, and supporting information files with all relevant data..We hope that the adjustments have responded to the questions and comments sent by the reviewers and that the uploaded files are in accordance with the requirements of Plos One. We are awaiting for the new revision!

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

pone.0320466.s006.docx (40.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Andres Mauricio Acevedo-Melo

9 Apr 2024

PONE-D-23-33548R1Accuracy of Information on the Underlying Cause of Death: An Analysis in Colombia during the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2021PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Berrio-Parra,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Hereby I provide the main concerns:

*Originality and Context: Please provide a clearer rationale for the study's significance within the existing literature.

*Methodological Clarity and Ethical Considerations: There are several methodological and ethical considerations that need to be addressed. The temporal scope of mortality records needs clarification, along with details on informed consent procedures, mitigation of biases during data review, and anonymization processes. Please ensure transparency and provide clear explanations for these aspects in the Methods section.

*Engagement with Data Sources: Clarify the decision to use data from the National Institute of Health (INS) instead of the National Administrative Department of Statistics (DANE).

*Statistical Analysis and Results: Provide a more detailed explanation of the statistical analysis, including the calculation of false positives and negatives and the rationale behind using kappa statistics solely for establishing validity. Correct any errors in the presentation of results, such as those regarding circulatory diseases.

*Representativeness and Underestimation: Substantiate claims about underestimation of causes of death, especially for rare events, and clarify the representativeness within the sample.

*Grammar and style review: Please perform a thorough revision of the manuscript to meet PLOS ONE Criteria for Publication.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 24 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andres Mauricio Acevedo-Melo, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: The paper is interesting but a paragraph in the Methods section is needed providing the context of the study, specifically addressing the following points of death certification in Colombia:

1) Who fills the death certificates (this is already reported in Discussion, but a brief anticipation is needed in Methods)

2) Which type of death certificate is adopted: exactly the International Death Certificate from the WHO, or an adaption?

3) In national mortality statistics, how the underlying cause of death is selected: by trained coders, or by a software as in the US (ACME) or in Europe (IRIS)?

4) Which version of the ICD-10 was adopted in the study period?

Moreover, in Methods authors should clearly specify the following:

1) What are they comparing, e.g. the disease on the underlying cause line in the death certificate compiled by the certifier, or the underlying cause of death selected according international coding rules by a coder or by software? This might not be important for the gold standard, since in a “perfect” death certificate the two conditions should coincide, but is relevant for the original death certificate: as an example, in a death certificate reporting pulmonary embolism in part I and cancer in part II, the latter (and not pulmonary embolism) will be selected according to international coding rules as the CoD

2) Authors should explicitly state already in Methods that they are measuring agreement at the chapter level of the ICD-10

Results need some improvement: a footnotes in all Tables with an abbreviated description of chapter numbers (e.g. “Infectious” for chapter I). Moreover, in page 11, last lines, an error was left from the previous version (circulatory diseases exhibited higher percentages of false positives, not of false negatives)

Lastly, authors should carefully check for typos through the manuscript: only as a first example, at the end of Methods in the Abstract, “…. and calculate kappa value were utilized” should be replaced with “… and kappa value were utilized …..”

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-33548_R1_reviewer.pdf

pone.0320466.s007.pdf (2.7MB, pdf)
Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-33548R1-Review.pdf

pone.0320466.s008.pdf (23.4KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2025 May 20;20(5):e0320466. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320466.r005

Author response to Decision Letter 2


12 Jul 2024

We gratefully received the reviewr´s comments on our manuscript. Therefore, we made the other adjustments to the manuscript addressing all aspects for its publication. We uploaded a response letter to the reviewers, the revised manuscript with tracked changes, the manuscript, a figure, ethics committee approval, appendix telephone interview guide and supporting information files with all relevant data.We hope that the adjustments have responded to the questions and comments sent by reviewers and that the uploaded files are in accordance with the requirements of Plos One. We will waiting for the new review.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

pone.0320466.s009.docx (49.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Andres Mauricio Acevedo-Melo

5 Aug 2024

PONE-D-23-33548R2Accuracy of Information on the Underlying Cause of Death: An Analysis in Colombia during the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2021PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Berrio-Parra,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 19 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andres Mauricio Acevedo-Melo, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting a revised version of your manuscript. Before it can be considered for publication, there are a few issues that need to be addressed. Please review the following main points, which are related to PLOS ONE publication criteria and highlight the concerns raised by the reviewers:

*Conclusions Supported by Data: Your manuscript uses the terms “accuracy” and “agreement” interchangeably. However, it is important to note that kappa statistic measures agreement, while false positive and negative rates estimate discrimination. Additionally, the distinction between “original” and “standard” death certificates, role of participating institutions and custodianship need clarification. Please revise these concepts throughout the manuscript to ensure clarity. Also, provide clear descriptions and interpretations of measures such as the Change in Cause-Specific Mortality Fraction (CCSMF) and the Bland-Altman diagram axis and legends.

*Clarity and Language: The manuscript should be written in clear, standard English. Please conduct a thorough English language review and address the mistakes highlighted by the reviewers. The following typos and issues were also noted: the word “Charts” is used in the abstract submission, while “records” is used in the manuscript abstract; a repeated sentence appears on lines 35-38; “offres” should be corrected to “offers” on line 56; and the acronym “IRIS” on line 112 should be explained. Please also review and correct subject-verb agreement and coherence issues, particularly between lines 280 and 284.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript needs clarity on data sources, terminology, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on death certificate accuracy.

Reviewer #4: Author improved the manuscript. Some minor revision is still needed

1) Abstract: please remove chapter numbers ("circulatory system diseases" is enough for the Abstract, without adding "Chapter IX")

2) Careful editing is needed, only as an example Introduction, page 3, row 56: please change "offres" with "offers"

3) Please correct Table 1: under "Reviewer underlying cause", change the right column from "Diagnosis X" to "The others (or better, "All other diagnoses"), and check all the following formulas

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-33548R3 Review Jul 28 2024.pdf

pone.0320466.s010.pdf (39.6KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2025 May 20;20(5):e0320466. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320466.r007

Author response to Decision Letter 3


17 Sep 2024

We gratefully received the journal's and reviewer´s comments on our manuscript. Therefore, we made the other adjustments to the manuscript addressing all aspects for its publication. We uploaded the response letter to the reviewers, the revised manuscript with tracked changes, the manuscript, a figure, ethics committee approval, appendix telephone interview guide and supporting information files with all relevant data.We hope that the adjustments have responded to the questions and comments sent by reviewers and that the uploaded files are in accordance with the requirements of Plos One. We will waiting for the new review.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers R2.docx

pone.0320466.s011.docx (21.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Pasyodun Koralage Buddhika Mahesh

5 Nov 2024

PONE-D-23-33548R3Agreement of information on the underlying cause of death: an analysis in Colombia during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Berrio-Parra,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 20 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pasyodun Koralage Buddhika Mahesh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #4: Authors addressed my previous comments

Reviewer #5: The document is a manuscript draft discussing the agreement of information on the underlying cause of death in Colombia during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021.

The key findings of the study by the authors are:

The agreement between the original and gold standard death certificates, categorized according to ICD-10 chapters, was 74%. Higher levels of agreement were observed for "codes for special COVID-19 situations" (kappa=0.84) and neoplasms (kappa=0.84). COVID-19 was considered the underlying cause of death in 29.8% of the original certificates and 31.8% of the gold standard certificates, with a very good agreement (kappa=0.84). The proportion of agreement for most causes of death remained consistent between genders, with 73% agreement in men and 75% in women.

The study recommends robust educational and training initiatives, the development of comprehensive guidelines, ongoing monitoring, the use of automated systems, and formalised review processes to improve the death certification process in Colombia.

I congratulate the authors for selecting this all-important topic and conducting the study to identify potential misclassifications in the cause of death data. Using Iris automated coding software for mortality coding has ensured the correct and consistent application of coding rules to select the underlying cause of death.

My primary concern is selecting the broad categories (ICD Chapter level) to compare the original UCOD with the gold standard. Grouping causes of death at the ICD chapter level can be considered a broad categorisation, which may limit the granularity and specificity of the analysis. Here are some points to consider:

1. ICD chapters encompass a wide range of diseases and conditions. For example, the chapter on "Diseases of the circulatory system" includes various conditions such as myocardial infarction, strokes, and hypertension. Grouping at this level may mask discrepancies in specific causes of death within the chapter.

2. More detailed categorization, such as using ICD-10 codes at the sub-chapter or individual code level, could provide a clearer picture of the accuracy and quality of cause of death data. It would allow for identifying specific areas where misclassification or inaccuracies are more prevalent. The authors could easily use the mortality tabulation lists (General mortality 1 -103 causes or General mortality 2 – 80 causes) provided in ICD-10 for disease categorisation.

3. Detailed cause of death data is crucial for designing targeted public health interventions. Broad categories may not provide the necessary details to inform specific health policies and resource allocation.

4. The study acknowledges the limitations of using broad categories and suggests that a more detailed analysis could provide additional insights. However, the broad categorisation might have been chosen for practical reasons, such as data availability or analysis feasibility.

5. Future studies could benefit from a more detailed examination of cause of death data using specific ICD-10 codes. This would enhance the understanding of the quality of death certification and help identify specific areas for improvement.

In summary, while the broad categorization at the ICD chapter level provides a general overview of the agreement between original and gold standard death certificates, a more detailed analysis would offer greater specificity and potentially more actionable insights.

Another issue is that he chapter-level broad categories of causes of death could include garbage codes (unusable codes for public health decision-making) of medium impact. These are known as ‘Level 3 (medium)’ garbage codes, meaning codes with important implications: causes for which the true underlying cause of death is likely to be within the same ICD chapter. For instance, ‘unspecified cancer’ still provides enough information to know if the UCOD was due to cancer. However, knowledge about the site of cancer is important for public health policy since different strategies are applied for different types (sites) of cancer (i.e. breast versus lung cancer).

The categorization of garbage codes into levels, particularly Level 3 garbage codes, is a useful approach to understanding the quality of cause of death data. Level 3 garbage codes refer to causes of death where the actual underlying cause is likely within the same ICD chapter.

In summary, since the study's use of broad categories aligns with the concept of Level 3 garbage codes, it still needs to be revised in terms of specificity and potential misclassification. Recognizing and addressing the presence of Level 3 garbage codes can help improve the quality of cause-of-death data and enhance the utility of mortality statistics for public health.

While the study methodology is generally sound, there are a few potential issues and limitations that could be addressed:

1. As previously mentioned, grouping causes of death at the ICD chapter level is quite broad and may mask specific discrepancies within those chapters. More granular categorization could provide a clearer picture of the accuracy and quality of cause of death data.

2. Determining the gold standard cause of death relied heavily on medical records and, when necessary, interviews with relatives or witnesses. Medical records may not always be complete or accurate, and interviews can introduce recall bias.

3. Although the health professionals were trained and supervised, there is still a risk of observer bias in interpreting medical records and assigning causes of death.

4. The study used data from the DANE 2021 mortality database and medical records. It did not include other potential sources of information, such as autopsy reports, which could provide additional accuracy in determining the cause of death.

5. The study focused on 92 municipalities, which may only partially represent part of the country. Geographical and demographic variability in the quality of death certification could exist, but this is not captured in this sample.

6. The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which could have affected the accuracy of death certification due to the high volume of deaths and the strain on healthcare systems. This context should be considered when interpreting the results.

7. While the study received ethical approval and took measures to anonymise data, obtaining consent from relatives or witnesses for interviews could introduce ethical concerns, especially in sensitive or traumatic deaths.

8. The findings may not be generalizable to other countries or regions with different healthcare systems, death certification processes, and levels of training for health professionals.

9. Although the study mentions that health professionals were trained and supervised, it needs to provide detailed information on the extent and quality of this training. Inadequate training could affect the reliability of the gold standard in determining the cause of death.

10. While the sample size is substantial, the study does not discuss potential selection bias in the choice of municipalities and deaths included in the sample. Selection bias could affect the representativeness of the findings.

Addressing these issues in future research could enhance the robustness and reliability of the findings and provide more detailed insights into the quality of cause of death data.

Reviewer #6: This article aims to estimate the agreement of the underlying Cause of Death in the original death certificate, compared with a gold standard certificate based on information from medical records and relatives, in Colombia during 2021. The authors have used summary measures of agreement such as the proportion of agreement, Kappa, CCSMF and graphical methods such as the Bland-Altman plot. While commending their efforts, the following comments are given with the hope that these will benefit the authors.

1. Please elaborate on the two-stage sampling method a bit more. As an example, it is mentioned that in the second stage, 92 municipalities were selected. It would be better to add that these 92 were selected out of how many. Also, what method was used in this random sampling (i.e. whether done by computer-generated random numbers etc.)? Furthermore, it is mentioned that 33 territorial entities were “considered” in the first stage. It would be nicer to elaborate a bit more on how this consideration was done.

2. Please give a reference to the sample size calculation formula/ software that was used.

3. In the sample size calculation, please define what variable was taken as “expected proportion of 70%” (i.e. whether it is the expected proportion of agreement?). Was this figure selected based on some previous literature or by some other method?

4. Please add any rationale for choosing the design effect of 2.5

5. It is mentioned that “In cases where medical 143 records lacked sufficient information, interviews with relatives, acquaintances, or witnesses 144 were conducted". Please add a bit more details on who conducted these interviews, in what settings and what kind of information were asked from the respondent etc.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: Yes:  I.O.K.K.Nanayakkara

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 May 20;20(5):e0320466. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320466.r009

Author response to Decision Letter 4


20 Jan 2025

We gratefully received the journal's and reviewer´s comments on our manuscript. Therefore, we made the adjustments to the manuscript addressing all aspects for its publication. We uploaded the response letter to the reviewers, the revised manuscript with tracked changes, the manuscript, a figure, a supplementary table, ethics committee approval, appendix telephone interview guide and supporting information files with all relevant data.We hope that the adjustments have responded to the questions and comments sent by reviewers and that the uploaded files are in accordance with the requirements of Plos One. We will waiting for the new review.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_4.docx

pone.0320466.s012.docx (31.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 4

Pasyodun Koralage Buddhika Mahesh

19 Feb 2025

Agreement of information on the underlying cause of death: an analysis in Colombia during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021

PONE-D-23-33548R4

Dear Dr. Berrio-Parra,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Pasyodun Koralage Buddhika Mahesh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #5: Thank you very much for your responses. It is great to see that you have responded taken appropriate action to all my comments. They have provided detailed responses and made necessary adjustments to the manuscript to address the concerns raised. Here are the key points of how you addressed the comments:

1. ICD Chapters and Detailed Categorization

The authors acknowledged the broad categorisation issue and incorporated the ICD-10 mortality tabulation list 2 (80 causes) for a more detailed analysis. They included the results in the supplement (Table 1S) and discussed the limitations of broad categories in the manuscript.

2. Granular Categorization

They agreed with the need for more detailed categorization and implemented it in the revised version. In the discussion section, they also discussed the impact of using broad categories and the benefits of detailed analysis.

3. Public Health Interventions

The authors concurred with the importance of detailed cause-of-death data for public health interventions and acknowledged the limitations of broad categories. They emphasized the need for future studies to use more detailed categorisation.

4. Garbage Codes

The authors recognized the importance of garbage codes and mentioned that Level 3 garbage codes were found in 2.84% of the basic CoD certifications, with most being "unspecified cancer."

5. Gold Standard and Observer Bias

They addressed the potential limitations of using medical records and interviews for the gold standard and acknowledged the risk of observer bias. They included these points in the discussion section as limitations.

6. Autopsy Reports

The authors clarified that autopsies are rarely performed for natural causes in Colombia, which is why they were not included in the study.

7. Geographical and Demographic Variability

They explained the probability sampling method used to ensure representativeness and provided additional details on the sampling process.

8. COVID-19 Pandemic Context

The authors included the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in the discussion, acknowledging its potential impact on the accuracy of death certification.

9. Ethical Concerns

They noted that no ethical concerns arose during the data collection process and emphasised the measures taken to ensure ethical standards.

10. Training of Health Professionals

The authors provided more details on the training given to health professionals by a DANE vital statistics expert.

11. Selection Bias

They explained the random sampling method used to minimise selection bias and provided details on the sampling process.

Overall, you have made comprehensive revisions to address my comments, enhancing the robustness and reliability of their findings. Therefore, I recommend that this manuscript be suitable for publication in your journal. Congratulations!

Reviewer #6: Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript and for addressing the reviewer’s comments thoughtfully. After carefully reviewing the changes, it is clear that the authors have made significant improvements, especially in clarifying the methodology and refining the discussion of the results.

The study is important, and the results contribute valuable insights to the understanding of cause of death classification in Colombia.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #5: Yes:  U S H GAMAGE

Reviewer #6: Yes:  I.O.K.K.Nanayakkara

**********

Acceptance letter

Pasyodun Koralage Buddhika Mahesh

PONE-D-23-33548R4

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Berrio-Parra,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Pasyodun Koralage Buddhika Mahesh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Appendix telephone interview guide.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0320466.s001.docx (16KB, docx)
    S2 File. Database accuracy: we confirm that uploaded data files contain no data which could be used to identify study participants.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0320466.s002.xlsx (717.1KB, xlsx)
    S1 Table. Underlying CoD agreement metrics between original and gold standard death certificates according to ICD-10 mortality list 2. Colombia, 2021.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0320466.s003.docx (26.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: renamed_26069.docx

    pone.0320466.s004.docx (15.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ValidityCauseDeathAuthors.docx

    pone.0320466.s005.docx (18.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    pone.0320466.s006.docx (40.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-33548_R1_reviewer.pdf

    pone.0320466.s007.pdf (2.7MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-33548R1-Review.pdf

    pone.0320466.s008.pdf (23.4KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

    pone.0320466.s009.docx (49.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-33548R3 Review Jul 28 2024.pdf

    pone.0320466.s010.pdf (39.6KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers R2.docx

    pone.0320466.s011.docx (21.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_4.docx

    pone.0320466.s012.docx (31.5KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are in the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES