Site Meter Family Medicine Notes

Lancet: 100,000 civilians dead in Iraq

Here's the lancet article (or here in pdf) being cited in the news today.  Free login to The Lancet is required.

Here's the summary:

Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey

Les Roberts, Riyadh Lafta, Richard Garfield, Jamal Khudhairi, Gilbert Burnham

Summary

 

Background In March, 2003, military forces, mainly from the USA and the UK, invaded Iraq. We did a survey to compare mortality during the period of 14·6 months before the invasion with the 17·8 months after it.

 

Methods A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002. In those households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. We assessed the relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17·8 months after the invasion with the 14·6-month period preceding it.

 

Findings The risk of death was estimated to be 2·5-fold (95% CI 1·6-4·2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1·5-fold (1·1-2·3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8·1-419) than in the period before the war.

 

Interpretation Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes.

We appropriately consider the 3000 New Yorkers who died in the WTC to be a tradgedy, but the scope of the tradgedy in Iraq is greater.   From a public health standpoint, these aretragic times that we live in.  W's myopic focus on Iraq has had devastating effects on our economy, our international credibility, and the lives of 100,000 Iraqi's ... "Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. "   So Sad.  So Frustrating.

Comments

Uuh, no. A wide CI does not "invalidate" a study. CIs tell you something of the spread around the estimate, and its stability. A whole lot of non-expert rightwingers have been bashing this study in remarkably uninformed ways, and this is one example of them. The weakest part of the study is the size of the sample. Although they interviewed 7868 people (which is a huge figure in terms of a scientifc study), that is not the number that was randomized, which is the key. The randomized unit was households, which numbered 33, and the analyses were made using that unit (as they should have). That's the reason for the wide CI. The study tells us with virtual certainty that there have been thousands of excess deaths in Iraq. It tells us with less certainty that most of these deaths were among women and children, most were violent, and most were the result of air strikes. It estimates with much less certainty exactly how many thousands of excess deaths occured. The best figure they can put on that is 98,000, but it could be much higher or much lower. It is not true that it is as likely to be just 8,000 as 98,000, as the uninformed will tell you. The farther the figure moves away from 98,000, the less likely it is that it will be "true". However, the extent of the range within which the true figure may lie indicates that the estimate is not stable. We already know that this war has resulted in a huge number of civilian deaths from American firepower. A bigger study needs to be done to determine how much.
Did you check the confidence intervals associated with the estimates in the study? They completely invalidate the results.

Links

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2