评估当前汇集复杂调查的方法实践和现有文献中的问题:系统性综述。

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Medical Research Methodology Pub Date : 2024-11-13 DOI:10.1186/s12874-024-02400-5
Md Sabbir Ahmed Mayen, Salwa Nawsheen Nisha, Sumya Afrin, Tanvir Ahammed, Muhammad Abdul Baker Chowdhury, Md Jamal Uddin
{"title":"评估当前汇集复杂调查的方法实践和现有文献中的问题:系统性综述。","authors":"Md Sabbir Ahmed Mayen, Salwa Nawsheen Nisha, Sumya Afrin, Tanvir Ahammed, Muhammad Abdul Baker Chowdhury, Md Jamal Uddin","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02400-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pooling data from complex survey designs is increasingly used in the health and medical sciences. However, current methodological practices are not well documented in the literature while performing the pooling strategy. We aimed to review related pooling studies and evaluate the quality of pooling within the framework of specific methodological guidelines, particularly when combining complex surveys such as Demographic & Health Surveys (DHS) and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic literature search focusing on studies utilizing the pooling method with DHS and MICS survey data. These studies were selected from those published between 2010 and 2021 and were retrieved from electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) in accordance with pre-defined inclusion criteria. Then, we extracted 355 studies for the final review and evaluated the reporting quality of the pooling strategy while considering some methodological issues.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The majority of studies (81.4%) reported using a pooled (one-stage) approach, while 11.8% used a separate (two-stage) approach, and 6.8% used both approaches. Approximately 63.3% of studies did not clearly describe their pooling strategy. Only 3.4% of the studies mentioned the variable harmonization process, while 66.9% addressed dealing with heterogeneity between surveys. All studies that used the separate (two-stage) approach conducted a meta-analytic procedure, while 38.1% of studies using the pooled approach employed a multilevel model. More than half of the studies (55.6%) mentioned the use of clustered standard errors. The Delta method, Bootstrap, and Taylor linearization were each applied in 11.1% of the studies for variance estimation. Survey weights, primary sampling unit (PSU) or cluster, and strata were used together in 30.5% of the studies. Survey weights were employed by 69.8%, PSU or cluster by 43.8%, and the strata variable by 31.7%. Sensitivity analysis was conducted in 16% of the studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study revealed that fundamental methodological issues associated with pooling complex survey databases, such as the selection of pooling procedures, data harmonization, accounting for cycle effects, quality control checks, addressing heterogeneity, selecting model effects, utilizing survey design variables, and dealing with missing values, etc., were inadequately reported in the included studies. We recommend authors, readers, reviewers, and editors examine pooling studies more attentively and utilize the customized checklist developed by our study to assess the quality of future pooling studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"279"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11562085/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the current methodological practices and issues in existing literature in pooling complex surveys: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Md Sabbir Ahmed Mayen, Salwa Nawsheen Nisha, Sumya Afrin, Tanvir Ahammed, Muhammad Abdul Baker Chowdhury, Md Jamal Uddin\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12874-024-02400-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pooling data from complex survey designs is increasingly used in the health and medical sciences. However, current methodological practices are not well documented in the literature while performing the pooling strategy. We aimed to review related pooling studies and evaluate the quality of pooling within the framework of specific methodological guidelines, particularly when combining complex surveys such as Demographic & Health Surveys (DHS) and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic literature search focusing on studies utilizing the pooling method with DHS and MICS survey data. These studies were selected from those published between 2010 and 2021 and were retrieved from electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) in accordance with pre-defined inclusion criteria. Then, we extracted 355 studies for the final review and evaluated the reporting quality of the pooling strategy while considering some methodological issues.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The majority of studies (81.4%) reported using a pooled (one-stage) approach, while 11.8% used a separate (two-stage) approach, and 6.8% used both approaches. Approximately 63.3% of studies did not clearly describe their pooling strategy. Only 3.4% of the studies mentioned the variable harmonization process, while 66.9% addressed dealing with heterogeneity between surveys. All studies that used the separate (two-stage) approach conducted a meta-analytic procedure, while 38.1% of studies using the pooled approach employed a multilevel model. More than half of the studies (55.6%) mentioned the use of clustered standard errors. The Delta method, Bootstrap, and Taylor linearization were each applied in 11.1% of the studies for variance estimation. Survey weights, primary sampling unit (PSU) or cluster, and strata were used together in 30.5% of the studies. Survey weights were employed by 69.8%, PSU or cluster by 43.8%, and the strata variable by 31.7%. Sensitivity analysis was conducted in 16% of the studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study revealed that fundamental methodological issues associated with pooling complex survey databases, such as the selection of pooling procedures, data harmonization, accounting for cycle effects, quality control checks, addressing heterogeneity, selecting model effects, utilizing survey design variables, and dealing with missing values, etc., were inadequately reported in the included studies. We recommend authors, readers, reviewers, and editors examine pooling studies more attentively and utilize the customized checklist developed by our study to assess the quality of future pooling studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"279\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11562085/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02400-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02400-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:从复杂的调查设计中汇总数据越来越多地应用于健康和医学科学领域。然而,在执行汇总策略时,目前的方法实践并没有在文献中得到很好的记录。我们旨在回顾相关的汇总研究,并在特定方法指南的框架内评估汇总的质量,尤其是在结合人口与健康调查(DHS)和多指标类集调查(MICS)等复杂调查时:我们进行了一次系统的文献检索,重点是利用人口与健康调查和多指标类集调查数据进行汇总的研究。这些研究选自 2010 年至 2021 年间发表的研究,并按照预先确定的纳入标准从电子数据库(PubMed 和 Scopus)中检索。然后,我们抽取了 355 项研究进行最终审查,并评估了汇总策略的报告质量,同时考虑了一些方法学问题:大多数研究(81.4%)报告使用了汇总(一阶段)方法,11.8%使用了单独(两阶段)方法,6.8%同时使用了两种方法。约 63.3% 的研究没有明确说明其汇总策略。只有 3.4% 的研究提到了变量协调过程,而 66.9% 的研究提到了如何处理调查之间的异质性。所有采用单独(两阶段)方法的研究都进行了元分析,而 38.1%采用汇总方法的研究采用了多层次模型。半数以上的研究(55.6%)提到使用了聚类标准误差。有 11.1%的研究采用了德尔塔法、Bootstrap 法和泰勒线性化法进行方差估计。30.5% 的研究同时使用了调查权重、主要抽样单位(PSU)或群组以及分层。69.8%的研究使用了调查权重,43.8%的研究使用了主要抽样单位或群组,31.7%的研究使用了分层变量。16%的研究进行了敏感性分析:我们的研究表明,纳入的研究没有充分报告与汇集复杂调查数据库相关的基本方法问题,如汇集程序的选择、数据协调、周期效应的考虑、质量控制检查、异质性的处理、模型效应的选择、调查设计变量的利用以及缺失值的处理等。我们建议作者、读者、审稿人和编辑更仔细地检查汇集研究,并利用我们的研究开发的定制检查表来评估未来汇集研究的质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluating the current methodological practices and issues in existing literature in pooling complex surveys: a systematic review.

Background: Pooling data from complex survey designs is increasingly used in the health and medical sciences. However, current methodological practices are not well documented in the literature while performing the pooling strategy. We aimed to review related pooling studies and evaluate the quality of pooling within the framework of specific methodological guidelines, particularly when combining complex surveys such as Demographic & Health Surveys (DHS) and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS).

Methods: We performed a systematic literature search focusing on studies utilizing the pooling method with DHS and MICS survey data. These studies were selected from those published between 2010 and 2021 and were retrieved from electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) in accordance with pre-defined inclusion criteria. Then, we extracted 355 studies for the final review and evaluated the reporting quality of the pooling strategy while considering some methodological issues.

Results: The majority of studies (81.4%) reported using a pooled (one-stage) approach, while 11.8% used a separate (two-stage) approach, and 6.8% used both approaches. Approximately 63.3% of studies did not clearly describe their pooling strategy. Only 3.4% of the studies mentioned the variable harmonization process, while 66.9% addressed dealing with heterogeneity between surveys. All studies that used the separate (two-stage) approach conducted a meta-analytic procedure, while 38.1% of studies using the pooled approach employed a multilevel model. More than half of the studies (55.6%) mentioned the use of clustered standard errors. The Delta method, Bootstrap, and Taylor linearization were each applied in 11.1% of the studies for variance estimation. Survey weights, primary sampling unit (PSU) or cluster, and strata were used together in 30.5% of the studies. Survey weights were employed by 69.8%, PSU or cluster by 43.8%, and the strata variable by 31.7%. Sensitivity analysis was conducted in 16% of the studies.

Conclusions: Our study revealed that fundamental methodological issues associated with pooling complex survey databases, such as the selection of pooling procedures, data harmonization, accounting for cycle effects, quality control checks, addressing heterogeneity, selecting model effects, utilizing survey design variables, and dealing with missing values, etc., were inadequately reported in the included studies. We recommend authors, readers, reviewers, and editors examine pooling studies more attentively and utilize the customized checklist developed by our study to assess the quality of future pooling studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Inclusion of unexposed clusters improves the precision of fixed effects analysis of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials with binary and count outcomes. FAIR data management: a framework for fostering data literacy in biomedical sciences education. A Bayesian analysis integrating expert beliefs to better understand how new evidence ought to update what we believe: a use case of chiropractic care and acute lumbar disc herniation with early surgery. Multistate Markov chain modeling for child undernutrition transitions in Ethiopia: a longitudinal data analysis, 2002-2016. A study within a trial (SWAT) of clinical trial feasibility and barriers to recruitment in the United Kingdom - the CapaCiTY programme experience.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1