ArticleStatistics in medicine2026
Correction for Participation Bias in Nonprobability Samples Using Multiple Reference Surveys.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Health researchers are increasingly adopting nonprobability sampling strategies in survey studies. However, the participation mechanism in such samples is unknown and estimated target parameters and exposure-outcome associations obtained from nonprobability samples can be biased. Current approaches developed to support statistical inference from nonprobability samples are unable to accommodate more than one reference sample. In this paper, we propose a general framework to address participation bias in nonprobability samples using multiple reference surveys. Previously published methods that use one reference survey are special cases within this framework. We focus primarily on the calibration estimators, another important special case in the proposed framework. These estimators have greater flexibility in situations with limited access to survey microdata and are straightforward for practical implementation. We describe two methods for variance estimation that account for all sources of variability of the proposed estimators: (1) the Taylor linearization method, which provides an analytic formula for the variance estimator, and (2) the leave-one-out jackknife method, a replication estimator. We assess the performance of the various methods through an extensive simulation study, which demonstrated satisfactory performance of the raking ratio calibration estimator in situations with highly dispersed participation probabilities in nonprobability samples and markedly smaller variance estimates for continuous outcomes. Finally, we illustrate the application of these methods using data from a real-world study of working adults in Canada.
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.