Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Quantifying errors without random sampling.

Carl V Phillips1, Luwanna M LaPole

  • 1Management and Policy Sciences, University of Texas School of Public Health and Center for Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine, University of Texas Medical School, Houston, Texas, USA. cphillips@sph.uth.tmc.edu

BMC Medical Research Methodology
|August 2, 2003
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Complexity does not create precision; the case of counting the number of vapers.

Global epidemiology·2026
Same author

Improving the integration of epidemiological data into human health risk assessment: What risk assessors told us they want.

Global epidemiology·2024
Same author

How Much Ongoing Smoking Reduction is an Echo of the Initial Mass Education?

American journal of health behavior·2022
Same author

Potential effects of using non-combustible tobacco and nicotine products during pregnancy: a systematic review.

Harm reduction journal·2020
Same author

Gateway Effects: Why the Cited Evidence Does Not Support Their Existence for Low-Risk Tobacco Products (and What Evidence Would).

International journal of environmental research and public health·2015
Same author

Letter by Rodu and Phillips regarding article, "Discontinuation of smokeless tobacco and mortality risk after myocardial infarction".

Circulation·2015
Same journal

Methods for incorporating test result information within the high-dimensional propensity score framework: application in UK electronic health record data.

BMC medical research methodology·2026
Same journal

Sparse multi-way DMDC for longitudinal classification in high dimension low sample size data.

BMC medical research methodology·2026
Same journal

Tree-based exploratory identification of predictive biomarkers in non-randomized data.

BMC medical research methodology·2026
Same journal

Comparative evaluation of interrupted time series analytical methods for healthcare quality improvement research: a Monte Carlo simulation study.

BMC medical research methodology·2026
Same journal

Methodological advances in claims-based dementia algorithms: integrating medication and clinical data for medicare populations.

BMC medical research methodology·2026
Same journal

An interpretable XGboost algorithm for predicting 30-day mortality in acute pancreatitis using routine biomarkers.

BMC medical research methodology·2026
See all related articles

Quantifying uncertainty in health measures is crucial. This study presents methods to quantify systematic errors, improving the accuracy and honesty of reported health data, especially for non-sampling error estimations.

Area of Science:

  • Biostatistics
  • Epidemiology
  • Health Data Science

Background:

  • Health quantifications, including mortality and morbidity, are subject to multiple error sources.
  • Routine quantification of random sampling error often overshadows other significant error types.
  • Non-sampling error is rarely quantified, leading to overstatement of result precision.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To highlight the issue of overstated precision in health data reporting.
  • To propose and demonstrate methods for quantifying various sources of error, including systematic errors.
  • To encourage more honest and accurate representation of study findings.

Main Methods:

  • Developing analytical methods for simple error quantification.
  • Implementing techniques like limiting significant figures for non-random sampling uncertainty.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Utilizing Monte Carlo simulation for complex calculations with multiple uncertainty sources.

    • Main Results:

    • Demonstrated straightforward methods to partially quantify uncertainty from non-random sampling.
    • Showcased Monte Carlo simulation's capability to estimate uncertainty in complex calculations.
    • Applied these methods to estimate the incidence of foodborne illness in the US.

    Conclusions:

    • Quantifying systematic errors is practical and essential for accurate health data.
    • Reporting quantified uncertainty enhances honesty, clarifies probability ranges, and guides future research.
    • Improved uncertainty quantification leads to more reliable health metrics.