Interval Estimation for Mark-Recapture Studies of Closed Populations

Cormack, R. M.

doi:10.2307/2532310

Cited by 108 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Here we extend the procedure proposed by Cormack (1992) to a situation with multiple strata. This will be done by externally assigning a value for the undercount in a given stratum r, and then deriving the maximum likelihood estimate for the model including that entry.…”

Section: Confidence Intervalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As we are dealing with nonstandard latent variable models, we discuss identifiability by assessing the rank of the information matrix. We provide separate estimates for the undercount in each stratum as defined by the covariate and complement the estimates with confidence intervals evaluated by using the profile log likelihood, thereby extending the work of Cormack (1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Multiple‐Record Systems Estimation Method that Takes Observed and Unobserved Heterogeneity into Account

Stanghellini¹,

Heijden²

2004

Biometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary. We present a model to estimate the size of an unknown population from a number of lists that applies when the assumptions of (a) homogeneity of capture probabilities of individuals and (b) marginal independence of lists are violated. This situation typically occurs in epidemiological studies, where the heterogeneity of individuals is severe and researchers cannot control the independence between sources of ascertainment. We discuss the situation when categorical covariates are available and the interest is not only in the total undercount, but also in the undercount within each stratum resulting from the crossclassification of the covariates. We also present several techniques for determining confidence intervals of the undercount within each stratum using the profile log likelihood, thereby extending the work of Cormack (1992, Biometrics 48, 567-576).

show abstract

Section: Confidence Intervalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Multiple‐Record Systems Estimation Method that Takes Observed and Unobserved Heterogeneity into Account

Stanghellini¹,

Heijden²

2004

Biometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, patients may not be hospitalized early in their disease course. Ideally, multiple sources of ascertainment should be employed, so that the level of ascertainment may be estimated using capturerecapture methods (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Advances in capturerecapture methodology have allowed the calculation of incidence and prevalence estimates even when there is some dependence between sources of ascertainment, as is commonly the case in epidemiologic studies (20,24,26,3 1). Furthermore, when carefully applied, these methods allow for the construction of confidence intervals which reflect the completeness of case finding (28). Confidence intervals around incidence rates have not been used routinely in previous incidence studies of SLE, but are extremely important in comparing the rates of disease across populations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidence of systemic lupus erythematosus race and gender differences

McCarty

Manzi

Medsger

et al. 1995

Arthritis & Rheumatism

371

241

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To examine racial differences in the incidence of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).Methods. A population-based registry of SLE patients in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, was used to identify incident cases of SLE diagnosed between January 1, 1985 and December 31, 1990, from 3 sources, by medical record review (University of Pittsburgh Lupus Databank, rheumatologists, and hospitals). Capture recapture methods using log-linear models were used to estimate the level of case-finding and to calculate 95% confidence intervals (CI). Incidence rates were calculated per 100,000 population.Results. A total of 191 definite and 78 probable incident cases of SLE were identified, and the overall annual incidence rates were 2.4 (95% CI 2.1-2.8) and 1.0 (95% CI 0.8-1.3), respectively. The crude incidence rates of definite SLE were 0.4 for white males, 3.5 for white females, 0.7 for African-American males, and 9.2 for African-American females. The annual incidence rates of definite SLE remained fairly constant over the study interval. African-American females with definite SLE had a younger mean age at diagnosis compared with white females (P < 0.05). Since the overall ascertainment rate was high (85%; 95% CI 78-92%), the ascertainment-corrected incidence rate for definite SLE, 2.8 (95% CI 2.6-3.2), was similar to the crude rate.Conclusion. Our rates clearly confirm previous reports of an excess incidence of SLE among females compared with males and among African-Americans compared with whites. We have used capture-recapture methods to improve the accuracy of SLE incidence rates, and we advocate their use to facilitate comparisons across studies.Accurate determination of the incidence rates of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is vital to understanding the clinical and societal consequences of this disease. Unfortunately, the available data concerning the incidence and prevalence of SLE are conflicting. A number of population-based studies have estimated the incidence of SLE in the United States, Europe, and the Caribbean (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15). It is important to note that all these studies relied on reporting of cases through one or more sources of ascertainment rather than by population survey. Early epidemiologic investigations of SLE in the US provided important preliminary estimates of disease incidence and differences in incidence based on age, sex, and race (1,2,4). Although these studies indicated a predominance of SLE in women and an increased incidence in AfricanAmericans compared with whites, the reported rates within a given gender and within specific racial groups varied dramatically across geographic areas and over study periods within a geographic area.Recent European studies have included methodologic improvements (i.e., use of standardized case

show abstract

“…The final model provided an estimate of the number of people who did not appear in any of the samples. Confidence intervals for the estimate for each stratum were calculated using the likelihood interval method 32 and the estimate of the total number of unknown problem drug users within each area was obtained by summing the stratified age-gender estimates. The GP dataset was substituted for the probation dataset in the City of Manchester to enable suitable models to be obtained for all six age-gender strata.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Capture-recapture estimates of problem drug use and the use of simulation based confidence intervals in a stratified analysis

Gemmell

Millar²,

Hay³

2004

Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Setting and participants: Problem drug users aged 16-54 resident within Greater Manchester who attended community based statutory drug treatment agencies, were in contact with general practitioners, were assessed by arrest referral workers, were in contact with the probation service, or arrested under the Misuse of Drugs Act for offences involving possession of opioids, cocaine, or benzodiazepines. Design: Multi-sample stratified capture-recapture analysis. Patterns of overlaps between data sources were modelled in a log-linear regression to estimate the hidden number of drug users within each of 60 area, age group, and gender strata. Simulation methods were used to generate 95% confidence intervals for the sums of the stratified estimates.Main results: The total number of problem drug users in Greater Manchester was estimated to be 19 255 giving a prevalence of problem drug use of 13.7 (95% CI 13.4 to 15.7) per 1000 population aged 16-54. The ratio of men to women was 3.5:1. The distribution of problem drug users varied across three age groups (16-24, 25-34, and 35-54) and varied between the 10 areas. Conclusions: Areas in close geographical proximity display different patterns of drug use in terms of prevalence rates and age and gender patterns. This has important implications, both for future planning of service provision and for the way in which the impact of drug misuse interventions are evaluated.

show abstract

Interval Estimation for Mark-Recapture Studies of Closed Populations

Cited by 108 publications

References 16 publications

A Multiple‐Record Systems Estimation Method that Takes Observed and Unobserved Heterogeneity into Account

A Multiple‐Record Systems Estimation Method that Takes Observed and Unobserved Heterogeneity into Account

Incidence of systemic lupus erythematosus race and gender differences

Capture-recapture estimates of problem drug use and the use of simulation based confidence intervals in a stratified analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About