Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40275196›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025

Assessing and adjusting for bias in ecological analysis using multiple sample datasets.

Qingfeng Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

1 author.

Qingfeng LiDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, E-8136, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. qli28@jhu.edu.

Funding

The Hopkins Population CenterP2CHD042854 · NICHD · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Alison Gemmill · 2021 to 2026
$3.0M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD042854
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEcological analysis utilizes group-level aggregate measures to investigate the complex relationships between individuals or groups and their environment. Despite its extensive applications across various disciplines, this approach remains susceptible to several biases, including ecological fallacy.

methodsOur study identified another significant source of bias in ecological analysis when using multiple sample datasets, a common practice in fields such as public health and medical research. We show this bias is proportional to the sampling fraction used during data collection. We propose two adjustment methods to address this bias: one that directly accounts for the sampling fraction and another based on measurement error models. The effectiveness of these adjustments is evaluated through formal mathematical derivations, simulations, and empirical analysis using data from the 2014 Kenya Demographic and Health Survey.

resultsOur findings reveal that the sampling fraction bias can lead to significant underestimation of true relationships when using aggregate measures from multiple sample datasets. Both adjustment methods effectively mitigate this bias, with the measurement-error-adjusted estimator showing particular robustness in real-world applications. The results highlight the importance of accounting for sampling fraction bias in ecological analyses to ensure accurate inference.

conclusionBeyond the ecological fallacy uncovered by Robinson's seminar work, our research identified another critical bias in ecological analysis that is likely just as prevalent and consequential. The proposed adjustment methods provide potential tools for researchers to adjust for this bias, thereby improving the validity of ecological inferences. This study underscores the need for caution when pooling aggregate measures from multiple sample datasets and offers potential solutions to enhance the reliability of ecological analyses in various research domains. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

Datasets as TopicEcologyBiasComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHealth SurveysHumansKenyaModels, StatisticalAggregate measuresCausal analysisCausalityEcological analysisMeasurement errorSample datasetsSampling fraction bias

Identifiers

PMID40275196
PMCPMC12023363

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.