ArticleAnnals of epidemiology2024
Assessing reliability of naïve respondent-driven sampling samples by using repeated surveys among people who inject drugs (PWID) in New Jersey.
Article in Annals of epidemiology, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRespondent-driven sampling (RDS) is widely used to sample populations with higher risk of HIV infection for whom no sampling frames exist. However, few studies have been done to assess the reliability of RDS in real world settings.
methodsWe assessed the reliability of naïve RDS samples using five rounds of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance - People Who Inject Drugs surveys in Newark, New Jersey from 2005 to 2018. Specifically, we compared the distributions of time-insensitive demographic characteristics in temporally adjacent RDS samples with Monte Carlo Two-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test with 100,000 replicates. The distributions of time-sensitive demographic characteristics were also compared as sensitivity analyses.
resultsThe study showed that repeated RDS samples among people who inject drugs in the greater Newark area, New Jersey were reliable in most of time-insensitive demographics and recruitment homophily statistics. Sensitivity analyses of time-sensitive demographics also presented consistencies in most of temporally adjacent samples.
conclusionsIn conclusion, RDS has the potential to provide reliable samples, but demographic characteristics of RDS samples may be easily biased by homophily. Future studies using RDS may need to pay more attention to potential homophily bias and consider necessary diagnostic procedures and sample adjustments.
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.