ArticlePeerJ2018
Calibration adjustments to address bias in mortality analyses due to informative sampling-a census-linked survey analysis in Switzerland.
Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSampling bias, like survey participants' nonresponse, needs to be adequately addressed in the analysis of sampling designs. Often survey weights will be calibrated on specific covariates related to the probability of selection and nonresponse to get representative population estimates. However, such calibrated survey (CS) weights are usually constructed for cross-sectional results, but not for longitudinal analyses. For example, when the outcome of interest is time to death, and sampling selection is related to time to death and censoring, sampling is informative. Then, unweighted or CS weighted inferential statistical analyses may be biased. In 2010, Switzerland changed from a decennial full enumeration census to a yearly registry-based (i.e., data from harmonised community registries) and a survey-based census system. In the present study, we investigated the potential bias due to informative sampling when time to death is the outcome of interest, using data from the new Swiss census system.
methodsWe analysed more than 6.5 million individuals aged 15 years or older from registry-based census data from years 2010 to 2013, linked with mortality records up to end of 2014. Out of this population, a target sample of 3.5% was sampled from the Swiss Federal Statistical Office (SFSO) in a stratified yearly micro census. The SFSO calculated CS weights to enable representative population estimates from the micro census. We additionally constructed inverse probability (IP) weights, where we used survival information in addition to known sampling covariates. We compared CS and IP weighted mortality rates (MR) and life expectancy (LE) with estimates from the underlying population. Additionally, we performed a simulation study under different sampling and nonresponse scenarios.
resultsWe found that individuals who died in 2011, had a 0.67 (95% CI [0.64-0.70]) times lower odds of participating in the 2010 micro census, using a multivariable logistic regression model with covariates age, gender, nationality, civil status, region and survival information. IP weighted MR were comparable to estimates from the total population, whereas CS weighted MR underestimated the population MR in general. The IP weighted LE estimates at age 30 years for men were 50.9 years (95% CI [50.2-51.6] years), whereas the CS weighted overestimated LE by 2.5 years. Our results from the simulation study confirmed that IP weighted models are comparable to population estimates.
conclusionMortality analyses based on the new Swiss survey-based census system may be biased, because of informative sampling. We conclude that mortality analyses based on census-linked survey data have to be carefully conducted, and if possible, validated by registry information to allow for unbiased interpretation and generalisation.
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.