ArticleRevista brasileira de epidemiologia = Brazilian journal of epidemiology2025
Comparison of calibration methods in the analysis of 2013 Brazilian National Health Survey data.
Article in Revista brasileira de epidemiologia = Brazilian 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to compare calibration methods for weights in the subsample of Laboratory Exams from the 2013 Brazilian National Health Survey (PNS), seeking to assess their representativeness and precision.
methodsTwo alternative proposals for constructing calibrated weights were performed based on post-stratification and raking methods. A comparison between the weights provided for the Laboratory Exams subsample and the two suggested weights was conducted through parameter estimates using the 2013 PNS subsample data. Additionally, seven measures were used to assess the performance of the proposed weighting systems.
resultsThe alternative post-stratification and raking weights produced generalizable estimates for the target population of the 2013 PNS, while the original weights did not. The alternative methods showed similar performance to the original method, with a slight advantage for raking in some evaluation measures.
conclusionIt is recommended that basic design weights be documented and included in the public-use data files of the PNS. Furthermore, it is suggested to cross-reference information between the sample and subsample of the 2013 PNS to enable the exploration of methods such as data imputation, aiming to obtain more accurate and representative estimates. These improvements are essential to ensure the quality and usefulness of PNS data in epidemiological and public health studies.
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.