IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i1p87-d125822.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing U.S. Injury Death Estimates from GBD 2015 and CDC WONDER

Author

Listed:
  • Yue Wu

    (Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, 110 Xiangya Road, Changsha 410078, China)

  • Xunjie Cheng

    (Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, 110 Xiangya Road, Changsha 410078, China)

  • Peishan Ning

    (Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, 110 Xiangya Road, Changsha 410078, China)

  • Peixia Cheng

    (Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, 110 Xiangya Road, Changsha 410078, China)

  • David C. Schwebel

    (Department of Psychology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA)

  • Guoqing Hu

    (Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, 110 Xiangya Road, Changsha 410078, China)

Abstract

Objective : The purpose of the present study was to examine consistency in injury death statistics from the United States CDC Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) with those from GBD 2015 estimates. Methods : Differences in deaths and the percent difference in deaths between GBD 2015 and CDC WONDER were assessed, as were changes in deaths between 2000 and 2015 for the two datasets. Results : From 2000 to 2015, GBD 2015 estimates for the U.S. injury deaths were somewhat higher than CDC WONDER estimates in most categories, with the exception of deaths from falls and from forces of nature, war, and legal intervention in 2015. Encouragingly, the difference in total injury deaths between the two data sources narrowed from 44,897 (percent difference in deaths = 41%) in 2000 to 34,877 (percent difference in deaths = 25%) in 2015. Differences in deaths and percent difference in deaths between the two data sources varied greatly across injury cause and over the assessment years. The two data sources present consistent changes in direction from 2000 to 2015 for all injury causes except for forces of nature, war, and legal intervention, and adverse effects of medical treatment. Conclusions : We conclude that further studies are warranted to interpret the inconsistencies in data and develop estimation approaches that increase the consistency of the two datasets.

Suggested Citation

  • Yue Wu & Xunjie Cheng & Peishan Ning & Peixia Cheng & David C. Schwebel & Guoqing Hu, 2018. "Comparing U.S. Injury Death Estimates from GBD 2015 and CDC WONDER," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-8, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:1:p:87-:d:125822
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/1/87/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/1/87/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    injury; death; compare;
    All these keywords.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:1:p:87-:d:125822. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.