ReviewPLoS medicine2013
Measuring coverage in MNCH: total survey error and the interpretation of intervention coverage estimates from household surveys.
Review in PLoS medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
31 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global health data precarity: Safeguarding the Demographic and Health Survey program as a global public good.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Article
- Subnational variations in the quality of household survey data in sub-Saharan Africa.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Inequalities in ownership and availability of home-based vaccination records in 82 low- and middle-income countries.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Recruitment, data collection, participation rate, and representativeness of the international cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study across 38 countries.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Antenatal care coverage and early childhood mortality in Zimbabwe: new interpretations from nationally representative household surveys.Health promotion international · 2024Article
- Are Clinical Prediction Rules Used in Spinal Cord Injury Care? A Survey of Practice.Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Can We Use Routine Data for Strategic Decision Making? A Time Trend Comparison Between Survey and Routine Data in Mali.Global health, science and practice · 2021Article
- Estimation of Ethiopia's immunization coverage - 20 years of discrepancies.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Article
- Performance monitoring and accountability: The Agile Project's protocol, record and experience.Gates open research · 2020Article
- Article
- Coverage and timeliness of vaccination and the validity of routine estimates: Insights from a vaccine registry in Kenya.Vaccine · 2018Article
- Validity of parental recalls to estimate vaccination coverage: evidence from Tanzania.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- The Effects of an Integrated Community Case Management Strategy on the Appropriate Treatment of Children and Child Mortality in Kono District, Sierra Leone: A Program Evaluation.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2017Article
- Comparison of inflation of third dose diphtheria tetanus pertussis (DTP3) administrative coverage to other vaccine antigens.Vaccine · 2017Article
- Improving coverage measurement for reproductive, maternal, neonatal and child health: gaps and opportunities.Journal of global health · 2017Review
- Survey onPorcine health management · 2017Article
- Review
- Birth registration and child undernutrition in sub-Saharan Africa.Public health nutrition · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nationally representative household surveys are increasingly relied upon to measure maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) intervention coverage at the population level in low- and middle-income countries. Surveys are the best tool we have for this purpose and are central to national and global decision making. However, all survey point estimates have a certain level of error (total survey error) comprising sampling and non-sampling error, both of which must be considered when interpreting survey results for decision making. In this review, we discuss the importance of considering these errors when interpreting MNCH intervention coverage estimates derived from household surveys, using relevant examples from national surveys to provide context. Sampling error is usually thought of as the precision of a point estimate and is represented by 95% confidence intervals, which are measurable. Confidence intervals can inform judgments about whether estimated parameters are likely to be different from the real value of a parameter. We recommend, therefore, that confidence intervals for key coverage indicators should always be provided in survey reports. By contrast, the direction and magnitude of non-sampling error is almost always unmeasurable, and therefore unknown. Information error and bias are the most common sources of non-sampling error in household survey estimates and we recommend that they should always be carefully considered when interpreting MNCH intervention coverage based on survey data. Overall, we recommend that future research on measuring MNCH intervention coverage should focus on refining and improving survey-based coverage estimates to develop a better understanding of how results should be interpreted and used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.