↓ Skip to main content

Error and bias in under-5 mortality estimates derived from birth histories with small sample sizes

Overview of attention for article published in Population Health Metrics, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Error and bias in under-5 mortality estimates derived from birth histories with small sample sizes
Published in
Population Health Metrics, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1478-7954-11-13
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Dwyer-Lindgren, Emmanuela Gakidou, Abraham Flaxman, Haidong Wang

Abstract

Estimates of under-5 mortality at the national level for countries without high-quality vital registration systems are routinely derived from birth history data in censuses and surveys. Subnational or stratified analyses of under-5 mortality could also be valuable, but the usefulness of under-5 mortality estimates derived from birth histories from relatively small samples of women is not known. We aim to assess the magnitude and direction of error that can be expected for estimates derived from birth histories with small samples of women using various analysis methods.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Kenya 1 3%
Unknown 30 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Other 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 41%
Social Sciences 9 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 1 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 October 2013.
All research outputs
#2,899,637
of 3,630,432 outputs
Outputs from Population Health Metrics
#98
of 115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,145
of 96,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Population Health Metrics
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,630,432 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 96,124 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.