ArticleBMC public health2019
Measuring and correcting bias in indirect estimates of under-5 mortality in populations affected by HIV/AIDS: a simulation study.
Article in BMC public health, 2019. 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.
- Correlates of low birth weight and preterm birth in India.PloS one · 2023Article
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
Abstract
backgroundIn populations that lack vital registration systems, under-5 mortality (U5M) is commonly estimated using survey-based approaches, including indirect methods. One assumption of indirect methods is that a mother's survival and her children's survival are not correlated, but in populations affected by HIV/AIDS this assumption is violated, and thus indirect estimates are biased. Our goal was to estimate the magnitude of the bias, and to create a predictive model to correct it.
methodsWe used an individual-level, discrete time-step simulation model to measure how the bias in indirect estimates of U5M changes under various fertility rates, mortality rates, HIV/AIDS rates, and levels of antiretroviral therapy. We simulated 4480 populations in total and measured the amount of bias in U5M due to HIV/AIDS. We also developed a generalized linear model via penalized maximum likelihood to correct this bias.
resultsWe found that indirect methods can underestimate U5M by 0-41% in populations with HIV prevalence of 0-40%. Applying our model to 2010 survey data from Malawi and Tanzania, we show that indirect methods would underestimate U5M by up to 7.7% in those countries at that time. Our best fitting model to correct bias in U5M had a root median square error of 0.0012.
conclusionsIndirect estimates of U5M can be significantly biased in populations affected by HIV/AIDS. Our predictive model allows scholars and practitioners to correct that bias using commonly measured population characteristics. Policies and programs based on indirect estimates of U5M in populations with generalized HIV epidemics may need to be reevaluated after accounting for estimation bias.
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.