↓ Skip to main content

Sample size considerations using mathematical models: an example with Chlamydia trachomatis infection and its sequelae pelvic inflammatory disease

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Sample size considerations using mathematical models: an example with Chlamydia trachomatis infection and its sequelae pelvic inflammatory disease
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-0953-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sereina A Herzog, Nicola Low, Andrea Berghold

Abstract

The success of an intervention to prevent the complications of an infection is influenced by the natural history of the infection. Assumptions about the temporal relationship between infection and the development of sequelae can affect the predicted effect size of an intervention and the sample size calculation. This study investigates how a mathematical model can be used to inform sample size calculations for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) using the example of Chlamydia trachomatis infection and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). We used a compartmental model to imitate the structure of a published RCT. We considered three different processes for the timing of PID development, in relation to the initial C. trachomatis infection: immediate, constant throughout, or at the end of the infectious period. For each process we assumed that, of all women infected, the same fraction would develop PID in the absence of an intervention. We examined two sets of assumptions used to calculate the sample size in a published RCT that investigated the effect of chlamydia screening on PID incidence. We also investigated the influence of the natural history parameters of chlamydia on the required sample size. The assumed event rates and effect sizes used for the sample size calculation implicitly determined the temporal relationship between chlamydia infection and PID in the model. Even small changes in the assumed PID incidence and relative risk (RR) led to considerable differences in the hypothesised mechanism of PID development. The RR and the sample size needed per group also depend on the natural history parameters of chlamydia. Mathematical modelling helps to understand the temporal relationship between an infection and its sequelae and can show how uncertainties about natural history parameters affect sample size calculations when planning a RCT.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Professor 2 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Other 7 32%
Unknown 4 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 14%
Mathematics 2 9%
Computer Science 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 6 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 June 2015.
All research outputs
#18,416,517
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,599
of 7,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,099
of 264,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#77
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 264,785 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.