Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32257160›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2020

Variance estimation for effective coverage measures: A simulation study.

Sara M Sauer, Thomas Pullum, Wenjuan Wang, Lindsay Mallick, Hannah H Leslie

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sara M SauerDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Thomas PullumThe Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program, Division of International Health and Development, ICF, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Wenjuan WangThe Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program, Division of International Health and Development, ICF, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Lindsay MallickThe DHS Program, Avenir Health; Glastonbury, Connecticut, USA.
Hannah H LeslieDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
ICF International (United States) · USAvenir Health · USHarvard Global Health Institute · USHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective coverage research is increasing rapidly in global health and development, as researchers use a range of measures and combine data sources to adjust coverage for the quality of services received. However, most estimates of effective coverage that combine data sources are reported only as point estimates, which may be due to the challenge of calculating the variance for a composite measure. In this paper, we evaluate three methods to quantify the uncertainty in the estimation of effective coverage.

methodsWe conducted a simulation study to evaluate the performance of the exact, delta, and parametric bootstrap methods for constructing confidence intervals around point estimates that are calculated from combined data on coverage and quality. We assessed performance by computing the number of nominally 95% confidence intervals that contain the truth for a range of coverage and quality values and data source sample sizes. To illustrate these approaches, we applied the delta and exact methods to estimates of adjusted coverage of antenatal care (ANC) in Senegal. We used household survey data for coverage and health facility assessments for readiness to provide services.

resultsWith small sample sizes, when the true effective coverage value was close to the boundaries 0 or 1, the exact and parametric bootstrap methods resulted in substantial over or undercoverage and, for the exact method, a high proportion of invalid confidence intervals, while the delta method yielded modest overcoverage. The proportion of confidence intervals containing the truth in all three methods approached the intended 95% with larger sample sizes and as the true effective coverage value moved away from the 0 or 1 boundary. Confidence intervals for adjusted ANC in Senegal were largely overlapping across the delta and exact methods, although at the sub-national level, the exact method produced invalid confidence intervals for estimates near 0 or 1. We provide the code to implement these methods.

conclusionsThe uncertainty around an effective coverage estimate can be characterized; this should become standard practice if effective coverage estimates are to become part of national and global health monitoring. The delta method approach outperformed the other methods in this study; we recommend its use for appropriate inference from effective coverage estimates that combine data sources, particularly when either sample size is small. When used for estimates created from facility type or regional strata, these methods require assumptions of independence that must be considered in each example.

Indexed as

Analysis of VariancePrenatal CareComputer SimulationHealth Care SurveysHealth FacilitiesHealth Services ResearchHumans

Identifiers

PMID32257160
PMCPMC7101480
OpenAlexW3012518224

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.