ArticleBMJ global health2019
How accurate are modelled birth and pregnancy estimates? Comparison of four models using high resolution maternal health census data in southern Mozambique.
Article in BMJ global health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExistence of inequalities in quality and access to healthcare services at subnational levels has been identified despite a decline in maternal and perinatal mortality rates at national levels, leading to the need to investigate such conditions using geographical analysis. The need to assess the accuracy of global demographic distribution datasets at all subnational levels arises from the current emphasis on subnational monitoring of maternal and perinatal health progress, by the new targets stated in the Sustainable Development Goals.
methodsThe analysis involved comparison of four models generated using Worldpop methods, incorporating region-specific input data, as measured through the Community Level Intervention for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) project. Normalised root mean square error was used to determine and compare the models' prediction errors at different administrative unit levels.
resultsThe models' prediction errors are lower at higher administrative unit levels. All datasets showed the same pattern for both the live birth and pregnancy estimates. The effect of improving spatial resolution and accuracy of input data was more prominent at higher administrative unit levels.
conclusionThe validation successfully highlighted the impact of spatial resolution and accuracy of maternal and perinatal health data in modelling estimates of pregnancies and live births. There is a need for more data collection techniques that conduct comprehensive censuses like the CLIP project. It is also imperative for such projects to take advantage of the power of mapping tools at their disposal to fill the gaps in the availability of datasets for populated areas.
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.