ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Evaluating the accuracy of survey data: a case study of COVID-19 vaccination rates in Germany.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to adult vaccination among adults and healthcare professionals across Mexico.PloS one · 2026Observational
- Breaking barriers in health surveillance: privacy-preserving techniques for tracking vaccine hesitancy and disease outbreaks in Pakistan.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurveys are an important source of timely and comprehensive population health data and play a crucial role in public health research and policymaking, as shown during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the reliability of survey data depends on their accuracy, which is often difficult to assess due to the limited availability of benchmark data. This study evaluates the accuracy of survey estimates of the COVID-19 vaccination rate in Germany and examines the impact of survey design and adjustment weights on accuracy.
methodsI compared survey estimates of the COVID-19 vaccination rate from multiple surveys conducted in Germany between 2021 and 2022 against administrative data on the vaccination rate as an external benchmark. Accuracy was assessed by calculating absolute and relative deviations between survey estimates and the administrative data. Further, I analyzed accuracy differences based on survey design, focusing on sampling procedure and survey mode, and I examined whether adjustment weights improved estimation accuracy.
resultsThe accuracy of survey estimates varied over time, with early surveys underestimating the vaccination rate and later surveys tending to overestimate it. Probability-based mixed-mode or personal interview surveys yielded more accurate estimates than did other survey designs. While some nonprobability web surveys performed well, their accuracy varied considerably. The application of adjustment weights generally improved estimation accuracy, suggesting that this weighting technique effectively addressed some sources of survey error.
conclusionsSurvey-based estimates of COVID-19 vaccination rates should be interpreted with caution due to widespread inaccuracies, particularly overestimation. Probability mixed-mode and personal interview surveys produced more accurate estimates, underscoring the importance of robust survey methodologies. The fact that I found that adjustment weights enhanced accuracy highlights their value in survey research. These findings provide valuable insights for public health researchers and survey methodologists in designing and interpreting health-related survey data.
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.