Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Casualties of the Iraq War" in English language version.
Indeed, it has been challenging to accurately document the number of casualties from wars and deaths resulting from malnutrition, infections, or disruption in health services during wars.
However, during times of war, we should remember that evidence from systematic household cluster sampling suggests that most excess deaths, and, by extension, most demands for intensive care, do not arise from violence but from medical disorders resulting from the breakdown of public health infrastructure (eg, cholera), or from the discontinuation of treatment of chronic diseases caused by interruption of pharmaceutical supplies.
Of the population-based studies, the Roberts and Burnham studies provided the most rigorous methodology as their primary outcome was mortality. Their methodology is similar to the consensus methods of the SMART initiative, a series of methodological recommendations for conducting research in humanitarian emergencies. [...] However, not surprisingly their studies have been roundly criticized given the political consequences of their findings and the inherent security and political problems of conducting this type of research. Some of these criticisms refer to the type of sampling, duration of interviews, the potential for reporting bias, the reliability of its pre-war estimates, and a lack of reproducibility. The study authors have acknowledged their study limitations and responded to these criticisms in detail elsewhere. They now also provide their data for reanalysis to qualified groups for further review, if requested. [...] The IBC was largely established as an activist response to US refusals to conduct mortality counts. This account, however, is problematic as it relies solely on news reports that would likely considerably underestimate the total mortality.
Although the Roberts and Burnham studies faced some criticism in the news media and elsewhere, part of which may have been politically motivated, these studies have been widely viewed among peers as the most rigorous investigations of Iraq War–related mortality among Iraqi civilians; we agree with this assessment and believe that the Hagopian study is also scientifically rigorous. Although the methodology and results in the four studies cited here have varied somewhat, it is clear that the Iraq War caused, directly and indirectly, a very large number of deaths among Iraqi civilians—which, in fact, may have been underestimated by these scientifically conservative studies. A paper by Tapp and colleagues and a recent report by three country affiliates of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War have extensively reviewed these four epidemiological studies as well as other studies that attempted to assess the impact of the Iraq War on morbidity and mortality.
the Iraq mortality survey of Burnham et al. (2006) was highly controversial and had major weaknesses (Spagat 2010), some of which led to an official censure by a professional association of survey researchers.
Indeed, it has been challenging to accurately document the number of casualties from wars and deaths resulting from malnutrition, infections, or disruption in health services during wars.
However, during times of war, we should remember that evidence from systematic household cluster sampling suggests that most excess deaths, and, by extension, most demands for intensive care, do not arise from violence but from medical disorders resulting from the breakdown of public health infrastructure (eg, cholera), or from the discontinuation of treatment of chronic diseases caused by interruption of pharmaceutical supplies.
Of the population-based studies, the Roberts and Burnham studies provided the most rigorous methodology as their primary outcome was mortality. Their methodology is similar to the consensus methods of the SMART initiative, a series of methodological recommendations for conducting research in humanitarian emergencies. [...] However, not surprisingly their studies have been roundly criticized given the political consequences of their findings and the inherent security and political problems of conducting this type of research. Some of these criticisms refer to the type of sampling, duration of interviews, the potential for reporting bias, the reliability of its pre-war estimates, and a lack of reproducibility. The study authors have acknowledged their study limitations and responded to these criticisms in detail elsewhere. They now also provide their data for reanalysis to qualified groups for further review, if requested. [...] The IBC was largely established as an activist response to US refusals to conduct mortality counts. This account, however, is problematic as it relies solely on news reports that would likely considerably underestimate the total mortality.
Although the Roberts and Burnham studies faced some criticism in the news media and elsewhere, part of which may have been politically motivated, these studies have been widely viewed among peers as the most rigorous investigations of Iraq War–related mortality among Iraqi civilians; we agree with this assessment and believe that the Hagopian study is also scientifically rigorous. Although the methodology and results in the four studies cited here have varied somewhat, it is clear that the Iraq War caused, directly and indirectly, a very large number of deaths among Iraqi civilians—which, in fact, may have been underestimated by these scientifically conservative studies. A paper by Tapp and colleagues and a recent report by three country affiliates of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War have extensively reviewed these four epidemiological studies as well as other studies that attempted to assess the impact of the Iraq War on morbidity and mortality.
the methods they used to obtain their unusually high estimate were subsequently widely criticized
Indeed, it has been challenging to accurately document the number of casualties from wars and deaths resulting from malnutrition, infections, or disruption in health services during wars.
However, during times of war, we should remember that evidence from systematic household cluster sampling suggests that most excess deaths, and, by extension, most demands for intensive care, do not arise from violence but from medical disorders resulting from the breakdown of public health infrastructure (eg, cholera), or from the discontinuation of treatment of chronic diseases caused by interruption of pharmaceutical supplies.
Of the population-based studies, the Roberts and Burnham studies provided the most rigorous methodology as their primary outcome was mortality. Their methodology is similar to the consensus methods of the SMART initiative, a series of methodological recommendations for conducting research in humanitarian emergencies. [...] However, not surprisingly their studies have been roundly criticized given the political consequences of their findings and the inherent security and political problems of conducting this type of research. Some of these criticisms refer to the type of sampling, duration of interviews, the potential for reporting bias, the reliability of its pre-war estimates, and a lack of reproducibility. The study authors have acknowledged their study limitations and responded to these criticisms in detail elsewhere. They now also provide their data for reanalysis to qualified groups for further review, if requested. [...] The IBC was largely established as an activist response to US refusals to conduct mortality counts. This account, however, is problematic as it relies solely on news reports that would likely considerably underestimate the total mortality.
the methods they used to obtain their unusually high estimate were subsequently widely criticized
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)In letters to the editor of The Lancet, and subsequent commentaries and peer-reviewed articles, scientists, statisticians, public health advocates, and medical researchers voiced concern about a range of technical and ethical issues, from the methods for choosing the households to be surveyed to the prac- tices used by interviewers to gather information from individuals. There were also con- cerns about the pre-war mortality rates chosen to compare with the post-invasion rates, as well as a host of other issues.
Although the Roberts and Burnham studies faced some criticism in the news media and elsewhere, part of which may have been politically motivated, these studies have been widely viewed among peers as the most rigorous investigations of Iraq War–related mortality among Iraqi civilians; we agree with this assessment and believe that the Hagopian study is also scientifically rigorous. Although the methodology and results in the four studies cited here have varied somewhat, it is clear that the Iraq War caused, directly and indirectly, a very large number of deaths among Iraqi civilians—which, in fact, may have been underestimated by these scientifically conservative studies. A paper by Tapp and colleagues and a recent report by three country affiliates of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War have extensively reviewed these four epidemiological studies as well as other studies that attempted to assess the impact of the Iraq War on morbidity and mortality.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)In letters to the editor of The Lancet, and subsequent commentaries and peer-reviewed articles, scientists, statisticians, public health advocates, and medical researchers voiced concern about a range of technical and ethical issues, from the methods for choosing the households to be surveyed to the prac- tices used by interviewers to gather information from individuals. There were also con- cerns about the pre-war mortality rates chosen to compare with the post-invasion rates, as well as a host of other issues.
the Iraq mortality survey of Burnham et al. (2006) was highly controversial and had major weaknesses (Spagat 2010), some of which led to an official censure by a professional association of survey researchers.
the methods they used to obtain their unusually high estimate were subsequently widely criticized