Citation

Chen X, Park R, Hurtado C, Gransar H, Tep B, Miranda-Peats R, Soohoo SL, Rozanski A, Berman DS. Dialogues Health 2022; 1: e100015.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2022, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.dialog.2022.100015

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The National Death Index (NDI) by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Death Master File (DMF) by Social Security Administration are the two most broadly utilized data files for mortality outcomes in clinical research. NDI's high costs and the elimination of protected death records from California in DMF calls for alternative death files. The recently emerged California Non-Comprehensive Death File (CNDF) serves as an alternative source for vital statistics. This study aims to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of CNDF compared to NDI. Of 40,724 consented subjects in the Cedars-Sinai Cardiac Imaging Research Registry, 25,836 eligible subjects were queried through the NDI and the CDNF. After exclusion of death records to establish the same temporal and geographic availability of data, NDI identified 5,707 exact matches, while CNDF identified 6,051 death records. CNDF had a sensitivity of 94.3% and specificity of 96.4% compared to NDI exact matches. NDI also produced 581 close matches: all were verified as deaths by CNDF through matching death date and patient identifiers. Combining all NDI death records, CNDF had a sensitivity of 94.8% and specificity of 99.5%. CNDF is a reliable source for obtaining mortality outcomes and providing additional mortality validation. The use of CNDF can aid and replace the use of NDI in the state of California.

Language: en

Keywords

data collection; Death ascertainment; death files; epidemiologic method; vital statistics