Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18986961›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2009

A metapopulation modelling framework for gonorrhoea and other sexually transmitted infections in heterosexual populations.

Mark I Chen, Azra C Ghani, W John Edmunds

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mark I ChenHealth Protection Agency, Centre for Infections, London NW9 5EQ, UK. mark_chen@pacific.net.sg
Azra C Ghani
W John Edmunds
Imperial College London · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gonorrhoea continues to be a public health problem in the UK, and is the second most common bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI) after chlamydia. In the UK, gonorrhoea is disproportionately concentrated in epidemiologically distinct subpopulations, with much higher incidence rates in young people, some ethnic minorities and inner city subpopulations. The original model of STI transmission proposed by Hethcote and Yorke explained some of these features through the concept of the 'core group'. Since then, several authors have modified the original model approach to include multiple sexual activity classes, but found this modelling approach to be inadequate when applied to low-prevalence settings such as the UK. We present a metapopulation framework for modelling gonorrhoea and other STIs. The model proposes that the epidemiology of gonorrhoea is largely driven by subpopulations with higher than average concentrations of individuals with high sexual risk activity. We show how this conceptualization of gonococcal epidemiology overcomes key limitations associated with some of the prior efforts to model gonorrhoea. We also use the model to explain several epidemiological features of gonorrhoea, such as its asymmetric distribution across subpopulations, and the contextual risk experienced by members of at-risk subpopulations. Finally, we extend the model to explain the distribution of other STIs, using chlamydia as an example of a more ubiquitous bacterial STI.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAge FactorsChlamydia InfectionsGonorrheaHumansUnited KingdomUrban Population

Identifiers

PMID18986961
PMCPMC2855508
OpenAlexW2147688087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.