Data-source choice in diabetes mortality surveillance and equity monitoring in the United States, 1999–2023
Authors' conclusion
Source choice changed conclusions about mortality trends, jurisdictional priority, and inequality.
Study context
- Population
- 51 US jurisdictions, 1999–2023; diabetes crude and age-standardised mortality rates
- Participants
- 1,275 jurisdiction-year observations
- Exposure
- CDC WONDER vs GBD 2023 diabetes mortality estimates
- Outcome
- Agreement of CMR estimates between sources
- Follow-up
- 1999–2023
Methodological detailscomparison of data sources (CDC WONDER vs GBD 2023), 51 US jurisdictions, 1999–2023
- Comparison of data sources (CDC WONDER vs GBD 2023)
- 51 US jurisdictions
- 1999–2023
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Pearson r
0.76
Concordance correlation coefficient
0.72
Concordance 1999-2019
0.82
Concordance 2020-2023
0.50
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
AAPC
| Outcome | CDC WONDER | GBD 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| National CMR trend (AAPC) | 0.60 | −0.42 |
Jurisdictional discordance
- Jurisdictions with opposite CMR trends
- 10
- Jurisdictions with discordant high-burden classification in 2023
- 6
Adjusted post-2019 signed discrepancy
- Adjusted signed discrepancy
- −3.09 per 100 000
- No consistent spatial autocorrelation
Income-related inequality in ASMR
- Both sources showed higher ASMR in lower-income jurisdictions, with a steeper absolute gradient in CDC WONDER
Original publication
Data-source choice in diabetes mortality surveillance and equity monitoring in the United States, 1999–2023. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. Published 7 August 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →