ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025
Generalizability of anti-SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence estimates to the Montréal pediatric population: a comparison between 2 weighting methods.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Seroprevalence studies of SARS-CoV-2 infections often have been based on study populations with nonrandom and nonrepresentative samples, limiting the generalizability of their results. In this study, the representativity and the generalizability of the baseline estimate (data collected from October 16, 2020, to April 18, 2021) of a pediatric seroprevalence study based in Montréal were investigated. The change in the estimates of seroprevalence were compared between 2 different weighting methods: marginal standardization and raking. The target population was the general pediatric population of Montréal, based on 2016 Canadian census data. Study results show variation across the multiple weighting scenarios. Although both weighting methods performed similarly, each possesses its own strengths and weaknesses. However, raking was preferred for its capacity to simultaneously weight for multiple underrepresented study population characteristics.
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.