Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33253308›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

External validity of prevalence estimates from the national maternity surveys in England: The impact of response rate.

Sian Harrison, Fiona Alderdice, Maria A Quigley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Sian HarrisonNIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4186-4169
Fiona AlderdiceNIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Maria A QuigleyNIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health PR-PRU-1217-21202
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevalence estimates from surveys with low response rates are prone to non-response bias if respondents and non-respondents differ on the outcome of interest. This study assessed the external validity of prevalence estimates of selected maternity indicators from four national maternity surveys in England which had similar survey methodology but different response rates.

methodsA secondary analysis was conducted using data from the national maternity surveys in 2006 (response rate = 63%), 2010 (response rate = 54%), 2014 (response rate = 47%) and 2018 (response rate = 29%). Unweighted and (for the 2014 and 2018 surveys) weighted survey prevalence estimates (with 95%CIs) of caesarean section, preterm birth, low birthweight and breastfeeding initiation were validated against population-based estimates from routine data.

resultsThe external validity of the survey estimates varied across surveys and by indicator. For caesarean section, the 95%CIs for the unweighted survey estimates included the population-based estimates for all surveys. For preterm birth and low birthweight, the 95%CIs for the unweighted survey estimates did not include the population-based estimates for the 2006 and 2010 surveys (or the 2014 survey for preterm birth). For breastfeeding initiation, the 95%CIs for the unweighted survey estimates did not include the population-based estimates for any survey. For all indicators, the effect of weighting (on the 2014 and 2018 survey estimates) was mostly a shift towards the population-based estimates, yet the 95%CIs for the weighted survey estimates of breastfeeding initiation did not include the population-based estimates.

conclusionThere were no clear differences in the external validity of prevalence estimates according to survey response rate suggesting that prevalence estimates may still be valid even when survey response rates are low. The survey estimates tended to become closer to the population-based estimates when weights were applied, yet the effect was insufficient for breastfeeding initiation estimates.

Indexed as

Delivery, ObstetricHealth SurveysAdultBody WeightBreast FeedingEnglandFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyPremature BirthSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID33253308
PMCPMC7703875

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.