↓ Skip to main content

Short-term forecasting of the prevalence of clinical trachoma: utility of including delayed recovery and tests for infection

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Short-term forecasting of the prevalence of clinical trachoma: utility of including delayed recovery and tests for infection
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13071-015-1115-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fengchen Liu, Travis C. Porco, Abdou Amza, Boubacar Kadri, Baido Nassirou, Sheila K. West, Robin L. Bailey, Jeremy D. Keenan, Thomas M. Lietman

Abstract

The World Health Organization aims to control blinding trachoma by 2020. Decisions on whether to start and stop mass treatments and when to declare that control has been achieved are currently based on clinical examination data generated in population-based surveys. Thresholds are based on the district-level prevalence of trachomatous inflammation-follicular (TF) in children aged 1-9 years. Forecasts of which districts may and may not meet TF control goals by the 2020 target date could affect resource allocation in the next few years. We constructed a hidden Markov model fit to the prevalence of two clinical signs of trachoma and PCR data in 24 communities from the recent PRET-Niger trial. The prevalence of TF in children in each community at 36 months was forecast given data from earlier time points. Forecasts were scored by the likelihood of the observed results. We assessed whether use of TF with additional TI and PCR data rather than just the use of TF alone improves forecasts, and separately whether incorporating a delay in TF recovery is beneficial. Including TI and PCR data did not significantly improve forecasts of TF. Forecasts of TF prevalence at 36 months by the model with the delay in TF recovery were significantly better than forecasts by the model without the delay in TF recovery (p = 0.003). A zero-inflated truncated normal observation model was better than a truncated normal observation model, and better than a sensitivity-specificity observation model. The results in this study suggest that future studies could consider using just TF data for forecasting, and should include a delay in TF recovery. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00792922.

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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 28%
Student > Master 6 24%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Professor 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 24%
Mathematics 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Decision Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 6 24%
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 22 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,429,163
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#4,228
of 5,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,804
of 283,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#111
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 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 5,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 283,279 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 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.