Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26497748›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2015

Aiming for a representative sample: Simulating random versus purposive strategies for hospital selection.

Loan R van Hoeven, Mart P Janssen, Kit C B Roes, Hendrik Koffijberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Usability Evaluation for the Amulet Wearable Device in Rural Older Adults with Obesity.Gerontechnology : international journal on the fundamental aspects of technology to serve the ageing society · 2018
    Article
  13. Technology for Behavioral Change in Rural Older Adults with Obesity.Journal of nutrition in gerontology and geriatrics
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Loan R van HoevenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Universiteitsweg 100, 3584 CG, Utrecht, The Netherlands. L.R.vanHoeven-3@umcutrecht.nl.
Mart P JanssenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Universiteitsweg 100, 3584 CG, Utrecht, The Netherlands. M.P.Janssen@umcutrecht.nl.
Kit C B RoesJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Universiteitsweg 100, 3584 CG, Utrecht, The Netherlands. K.C.B.Roes@umcutrecht.nl.
Hendrik KoffijbergJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Universiteitsweg 100, 3584 CG, Utrecht, The Netherlands. H.Koffijberg@umcutrecht.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA ubiquitous issue in research is that of selecting a representative sample from the study population. While random sampling strategies are the gold standard, in practice, random sampling of participants is not always feasible nor necessarily the optimal choice. In our case, a selection must be made of 12 hospitals (out of 89 Dutch hospitals in total). With this selection of 12 hospitals, it should be possible to estimate blood use in the remaining hospitals as well. In this paper, we evaluate both random and purposive strategies for the case of estimating blood use in Dutch hospitals.

methodsAvailable population-wide data on hospital blood use and number of hospital beds are used to simulate five sampling strategies: (1) select only the largest hospitals, (2) select the largest and the smallest hospitals ('maximum variation'), (3) select hospitals randomly, (4) select hospitals from as many different geographic regions as possible, (5) select hospitals from only two regions. Simulations of each strategy result in different selections of hospitals, that are each used to estimate blood use in the remaining hospitals. The estimates are compared to the actual population values; the subsequent prediction errors are used to indicate the quality of the sampling strategy.

resultsThe strategy leading to the lowest prediction error in the case study was maximum variation sampling, followed by random, regional variation and two-region sampling, with sampling the largest hospitals resulting in the worst performance. Maximum variation sampling led to a hospital level prediction error of 15%, whereas random sampling led to a prediction error of 19% (95% CI 17%-26%). While lowering the sample size reduced the differences between maximum variation and the random strategies, increasing sample size to n = 18 did not change the ranking of the strategies and led to only slightly better predictions.

conclusionsThe optimal strategy for estimating blood use was maximum variation sampling. When proxy data are available, it is possible to evaluate random and purposive sampling strategies using simulations before the start of the study. The results enable researchers to make a more educated choice of an appropriate sampling strategy.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationDecision MakingSelection BiasBlood TransfusionData CollectionHospitalsHumansPatient SelectionRandom AllocationSample Size

Identifiers

PMID26497748
PMCPMC4619525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.