Criticism of graph Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties

figure 4 second lancet survey of iraqi mortality, showing comparison 2 other mortality estimates. 2 letters subsequently published in lancet journal challenged graph erroneous , misleading, , authors of study conceded these problems, saying intended illustrate similar escalation.

figure 4 october 2006 lancet survey of iraq war mortality, showing comparison of 3 mortality estimates. 2 letters subsequently published in lancet journal challenged graph.

the purpose of graph in lancet article in monitoring trends on time, show increased deaths 3 mortality different mortality estimates. results other studies track results lancet surveys. graph states, similar patterns of mortality on time documented in our survey , other sources corroborate our findings trends in mortality on time. graph shows ibc , dod data document rise in cumulative deaths on time (plotted along deaths axis on left). rates lancet plotted independently using deaths per 1,000 per year axis on right.

a letter debarati guha-sapir, olivier degomme , jon pedersen argues: burnham , colleagues figure 4, in cumulated iraq body count deaths parallel study s mortality rates, misleading. rates cannot compared numbers, less cumulative numbers. second letter josh dougherty argues dod figure misrepresented: burnham , colleagues assertion dod estimated civilian casualty rate @ 117 deaths per day mistaken, figure 4, repeats error in graphic form. these data refer iraqi civilians , security-force personnel, not civilians, , casualties (ie, deaths or injuries), not deaths.

the lancet authors replied, josh dougherty , debarati guha-sapir , colleagues point out figure 4 of our report mixes rates , counts, creating confusing image. find criticism valid , accept error on our part. moreover, dougherty rightly points out data in department of defense source casualties, not deaths alone... wanted show 3 sources pointed escalating conflict.