↓ Skip to main content

True malaria prevalence in children under five: Bayesian estimation using data of malaria household surveys from three sub-Saharan countries

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
True malaria prevalence in children under five: Bayesian estimation using data of malaria household surveys from three sub-Saharan countries
Published in
Malaria Journal, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12936-018-2211-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elvire Mfueni, Brecht Devleesschauwer, Angel Rosas-Aguirre, Carine Van Malderen, Patrick T. Brandt, Bernhards Ogutu, Robert W. Snow, Léon Tshilolo, Dejan Zurovac, Dieter Vanderelst, Niko Speybroeck

Abstract

Malaria is one of the major causes of childhood death in sub-Saharan countries. A reliable estimation of malaria prevalence is important to guide and monitor progress toward control and elimination. The aim of the study was to estimate the true prevalence of malaria in children under five in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda and Kenya, using a Bayesian modelling framework that combined in a novel way malaria data from national household surveys with external information about the sensitivity and specificity of the malaria diagnostic methods used in those surveys-i.e., rapid diagnostic tests and light microscopy. Data were used from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and Malaria Indicator Surveys (MIS) conducted in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DHS 2013-2014), Uganda (MIS 2014-2015) and Kenya (MIS 2015), where information on infection status using rapid diagnostic tests and/or light microscopy was available for 13,573 children. True prevalence was estimated using a Bayesian model that accounted for the conditional dependence between the two diagnostic methods, and the uncertainty of their sensitivities and specificities obtained from expert opinion. The estimated true malaria prevalence was 20% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 17%-23%) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 22% (95% UI 9-32%) in Uganda and 1% (95% UI 0-3%) in Kenya. According to the model estimations, rapid diagnostic tests had a satisfactory sensitivity and specificity, and light microscopy had a variable sensitivity, but a satisfactory specificity. Adding reported history of fever in the previous 14 days as a third diagnostic method to the model did not affect model estimates, highlighting the poor performance of this indicator as a malaria diagnostic. In the absence of a gold standard test, Bayesian models can assist in the optimal estimation of the malaria burden, using individual results from several tests and expert opinion about the performance of those tests.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 28%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 30 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 35 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 January 2019.
All research outputs
#13,756,347
of 23,322,258 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#3,583
of 5,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,545
of 438,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#84
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,657 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 438,952 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.