ICD-9-CM notes. Preliminary notice: coding prosthetic lens insertion.

The 3478 death certificates (7.1% of all annual death certificates) of this study comprise those national death certificates in 1995 submitted for validation to the panel representing both medical and nosological expertise. As such, it is highly selected and represents, from the nosological point of view, the most inconsistently filled-in portion of Finnish death certificates. The routine validation procedure is essentially based on exploitation of the extra medical information, i.e. the case history, on the Finnish death certificate form. Altogether, 2813 (80.9%) out of 3478 certificates could be adjusted at the primary panel session; the rest required further clarification. The re-assignment of cause of death by the panel and the impact of panel adjustments on the national mortality statistics is assessed here by comparing the initial death certification and the finally registered underlying cause of death grouped into ICD-9 major categories with special reference to the subcategories of neoplasm, cardiovascular disease (HVD) and unnatural death. A statistically significant decline (p<0.0001) in deaths, both in the category of symptoms, signs and ill-defined conditions and in the pulmonary circulation disease subcategory of HVD with 37.6 and 35.1%, respectively, was observed. The decrease of 11.1% in the benign or NUD neoplasm subcategory and the increase of 8.6 and 7.0% in the categories of endocrine disease, and musculo-skeletal and connective tissue disease, respectively, are essential observations as to the quality of the cause of death register. The effect on the HVD major category was practically nil. At the HVD-subcategorial level, a decrease of 14.0% for diseases of the veins and lymphatics and other circulatory diseases and an increase of 3.5% for hypertensive diseases (HYP) were the two next most obvious alterations to the diseases of the pulmonary circulation, but were without statistical significance. For ischaemic heart disease and other subcategories, the effects were minor. The unnatural deaths as a whole increased in the final statistics with only 0.9%. In the study data, categorial changes ranged from the decrease of 75.2% for symptoms, signs and ill-defined conditions to the increase of 77.3% for endocrine diseases. In conclusion, the Finnish death certificate form, death certification practices and cause of death validation procedure seem to serve the coding of causes of death for mortality statistics appropriately. The results of the study form a relevant reference background to evaluation of epidemiological studies on mortality.

Abstracting and Indexing↗

PubMed2001

Factors associated with acceptance and full publication of GI endoscopic research originally published in abstract form.

BACKGROUND: Many abstracts submitted to annual scientific meetings never come to full publication in peer-reviewed journals. The objective of this study was to determine factors associated with the fate of endoscopic research abstracts submitted to the annual scientific meeting of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE). METHODS: All abstracts (n = 461) submitted to the annual meeting of the ASGE in May of 1994 were retrospectively reviewed. The following databases were searched for evidence of publication of abstracts in full-manuscript form: Medline, HealthSTAR, Current Contents, CINHAL, and Cancerlit. All abstracts were reviewed between May 4, 1998 and June 30, 1998. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to determine the association between abstract characteristics and acceptance for presentation at the meeting and for publication. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent (247/451) of submitted abstracts were accepted for presentation. In univariate analysis, pediatric studies, prospective studies, randomized studies, and studies from university-affiliated medical centers (UAMC), were more likely to be accepted for presentation (p < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, the variables: pediatric studies (p = 0.01), prospective studies (p = 0.005), randomized studies (p = 0.06), and studies from UAMC (p = 0.01) predicted acceptance of abstracts for presentation at the meeting. The overall publication rate was 25.1%. The publication rates 1, 2, 3, and 4 years after the meeting were 6.7%, 16.2%, 22.8%, and 25.1%, respectively. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that accepted abstracts (p = 0.0003) studies reporting positive results (p = 0.0015), and studies from outside the United States (p = 0.036) were more likely to be published in manuscript form. CONCLUSIONS: The overall publication rate of abstracts reporting endoscopic research is 25%, lower than that in any published report from other medical societies. Abstracts from the United States were less likely to be published in full-manuscript form. Although there was no positive outcome bias for acceptance of abstracts for presentation at the meeting, there was bias toward publication of statistically significant results. Further investigations are warranted to determine the variation in the publication of research results according to country of origin and to determine factors that hinder publication of GI endoscopic research in manuscript form.

Abstracting and Indexing↗