Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

An important confounding factor

Posted by noritanida on 05 Jan 2012 at 01:06 GMT

In 1995, the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW) introduced the ICD-10 system into Japan. As part of its policy, MHW enforced doctors to improve a death certificate. Until 1995, it was a common practice for doctors to write down “heart failure” or “respiratory failure” as a cause of death. But, such a trivial death certificate was not allowed anymore. Instead, many doctors used “pneumonia” as a cause of death. Accordingly, a number of death certificates with “pneumonia” jumped up since 1995. I was wondering to what extents this fundamental change of the Japanese death certification system affected influenza-related excess mortality rates.

No competing interests declared.

RE: An important confounding factor

vivek_charu replied to noritanida on 09 Jan 2012 at 18:16 GMT

Thank you for this comment. We examined the transition between ICD-9 and ICD-10-coded pneumonia and influenza (P&I) deaths in Japanese death certificates very carefully. In a method similar to that used by the US National Center for Health Statistics, we studied the ratio of ICD-10-coded P&I deaths to ICD-9-coded P&I deaths. We did not find any evidence to correct ICD-10 coded deaths by any factor.

Furthermore, if systematic changes in the coding of P&I deaths exist after 1995, we would expect that the increase in P&I-coded deaths would be present in the summer-months as well (months without influenza circulation). As shown in Fig. 1 of our paper, we do not see an abrupt change in P&I mortality rates before and after 1995 in Japan. Further, our estimation of baseline P&I mortality rates using cyclical regression models and spline functions allows us to correct for both short- and long-term trends in P&I mortality rates.

We therefore do not believe that changes in the coding of P&I deaths effect our calculation of influenza-related excess mortality rates in Japan.

No competing interests declared.