Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Children are not goldfish—mark/recapture techniques and their application to injury data
  1. Stephen N Jarvis1,
  2. Philip J Lowe1,
  3. Alison Avery1,
  4. Sara Levene2,
  5. Richard M Cormack3
  1. 1Department of Child Health, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Donald Court House, 13 Walker Terrace, Gateshead NE8 1EB, UK
  2. 2Child Accident Prevention Trust, London
  3. 3School of Mathematical and Computational Sciences, University of St Andrews
  1. Correspondence to:
 Professor Jarvis

Abstract

Objectives—Mark/recapture (or capture-recapture) is a simple technique commonly applied to estimate the hypothetical total (including undercount) in a register composed of cases from two or more independent and separately incomplete case lists. This paper seeks to illustrate serious drawbacks in the use of the mark/recapture technique when applied to injuries.

Setting and subjects—Northumbrian children under 15 years of age who were seriously injured in motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) over a five year period ascertained from two data sources: police reports and hospital inpatient records.

Methods—Individuals (n) appearing in both police (S) and hospital (H) case lists are identified using various matching criteria. The separate and combined influence of age, sex, and casualty class (cyclist, passengers, pedestrians) on the probability of such matching is estimated using multivariate techniques. The hypothetical total incidence of child MVA victims (N) is calculated from N = (S × H)/n.

Main outcomes—Estimates of the incidences of “serious” injuries in MVAs under various conditions of stratification and matching. The overall procedure is tested for conformity with accepted criteria for valid use of mark/recapture.

Results—About one third of the 1009 police and 836 hospital records could be exactly matched. There were significant variations in matching proportions by class of accident (pedestrian v passenger v cyclist). This selective recapture or “heterogeneity” was not affected by sex, but was independently influenced by the age of the child. Further uncertainty was introduced when matching criteria were slightly relaxed. Estimates of the total population of children with serious injuries vary accordingly from 1729 to 2743. A number of plausible reasons why these two data sources might not be unbiased or mutually independent samples of the total target population are proposed as explanations for this heterogeneity.

Conclusion—This typical example of two sample mark/recapture estimation in an epidemiological setting can be shown to violate virtually all the requirements for valid use of the technique. Very little can be deduced accurately about the scale or characteristics of an unobserved group by the use of mark/recapture applied to two overlapping health event registers.

  • mark/recapture
  • epidemiology

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • Editorial
    I B Pless