Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33050935›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of health geographics2020

Geospatial estimation of reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health indicators: a systematic review of methodological aspects of studies based on household surveys.

Leonardo Z Ferreira, Cauane Blumenberg, C Edson Utazi, Kristine Nilsen, Fernando P Hartwig, Andrew J Tatem, Aluisio J D Barros

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of health geographics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors.

Leonardo Z FerreiraInternational Center for Equity in Health, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil. lferreira@equidade.org.ORCID 0000-0001-7843-9345
Cauane BlumenbergInternational Center for Equity in Health, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.
C Edson UtaziWorldPop, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Kristine NilsenWorldPop, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Fernando P HartwigPost-Graduate Program in Epidemiology, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.
Andrew J TatemWorldPop, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Aluisio J D BarrosInternational Center for Equity in Health, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 101815/Z/13/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeospatial approaches are increasingly used to produce fine spatial scale estimates of reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health (RMNCH) indicators in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aims to describe important methodological aspects and specificities of geospatial approaches applied to RMNCH coverage and impact outcomes and enable non-specialist readers to critically evaluate and interpret these studies.

methodsTwo independent searches were carried out using Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, SCIELO and LILACS electronic databases. Studies based on survey data using geospatial approaches on RMNCH in LMICs were considered eligible. Studies whose outcomes were not measures of occurrence were excluded.

resultsWe identified 82 studies focused on over 30 different RMNCH outcomes. Bayesian hierarchical models were the predominant modeling approach found in 62 studies. 5 × 5 km estimates were the most common resolution and the main source of information was Demographic and Health Surveys. Model validation was under reported, with the out-of-sample method being reported in only 56% of the studies and 13% of the studies did not present a single validation metric. Uncertainty assessment and reporting lacked standardization, and more than a quarter of the studies failed to report any uncertainty measure.

conclusionsThe field of geospatial estimation focused on RMNCH outcomes is clearly expanding. However, despite the adoption of a standardized conceptual modeling framework for generating finer spatial scale estimates, methodological aspects such as model validation and uncertainty demand further attention as they are both essential in assisting the reader to evaluate the estimates that are being presented.

Indexed as

Child HealthReproductive HealthBayes TheoremChildHumansInfant, NewbornPovertyChild healthGeospatial modelingHousehold surveysLow- and middle-income countriesMaternal healthNewborn healthReproductive healthSmall area estimation

Identifiers

PMID33050935
PMCPMC7552506

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.