Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 14569345

[Estimates from a complex survey].

Maria Helena de Sousa·Nilza Nunes da Silva
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of sampling design and the effect of weighting on data from the 1996 Brazilian National Survey on Demography and Health. METHODS: Secondary data analysis was performed using a sample of 1,355 interviewed women of the state of São Paulo. The sampling design of the National Survey of Household Sampling (PNAD) was used as a reference, and the municipality as primary sampling unit. The ratio estimator and Taylor's approximation for variance were calculated using the primary sampling units and several modalities of weighting. The indicators used to evaluate precision and validity were confidence intervals, design effects (Deff) and biases. RESULTS: For the four procedures, the differences between upper and lower point estimates for prevalence were not greater than 10%. The differences on ranges of confidence intervals were less than 20%. Use of condom and hormone injection were the variables that showed design effects greater than 1.5 and biases greater than 0.20. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results, it could be said that the cluster sampling had an impact on the precision of the estimates for two out of six variables. The impact of weighting was not significant.

Explore related subjects

BiasConfidence IntervalsData CollectionDemographyFemaleHealth SurveysHumansReproducibility of ResultsSampling StudiesJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Maria Helena de Sousa, Nilza Nunes da Silva. 2003-10-09. [Estimates from a complex survey].. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0034-89102003000500018

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗
PubMed2004

Bias due to aggregation of individual covariates in the Cox regression model.

The impact of covariate aggregation, well studied in relation to linear regression, is less clear in the Cox model. In this paper, the authors use real-life epidemiologic data to illustrate how aggregating individual covariate values may lead to important underestimation of the exposure effect. The issue is then systematically assessed through simulations, with six alternative covariate representations. It is shown that aggregation of important predictors results in a systematic bias toward the null in the Cox model estimate of the exposure effect, even if exposure and predictors are not correlated. The underestimation bias increases with increasing strength of the covariate effect and decreasing censoring and, for a strong predictor and moderate censoring, may exceed 20%, with less than 80% coverage of the 95% confidence interval. However, covariate aggregation always induces smaller bias than covariate omission does, even if the two phenomena are shown to be related. The impact of covariate aggregation, but not omission, is independent of the covariate-exposure correlation. Simulations involving time-dependent aggregates demonstrate that bias results from failure of the baseline covariate mean to account for nonrandom changes over time in the risk sets and suggest a simple approach that may reduce the bias if individual data are available but have to be aggregated.

Bias↗