hyporational comments on Open Thread, November 1 - 7, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (299)
It seems I miscommunicated here. What I meant to say that listing these other diseases has no meaningful impact on the mortality statistics, although technically speaking they are causes of death. If the point is to gather accurate statistics, listing them feels like a consolation prize, because statisticians don't seem to be interested in them.
In Finland a direct translation for these would be "contributory causes of death". That's probably the same thing as secondary causes of death. The problem is, it's difficult for someone who makes these into statistics to know how important they were. Almost anything the patient has can be listed as a contributory cause of death.
Even a bigger problem is that listing them is completely optional. If almost nobody fills them in properly (because they usually have better things to do), that is another good reason for a statistician not to use them.
Is filling in the secondary causes mandatory in US? Are there clear restrictions for what can be listed? If not, I'm not sure if they provide all that useful information, statistically speaking. Are they really used in meaningful way in any statistics?
I suppose WHO recommendations for filling these certificates impact the US too.