Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25014543›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Validation of the modes of transmission model as a tool to prioritize HIV prevention targets: a comparative modelling analysis.

Sharmistha Mishra, Michael Pickles, James F Blanchard, Stephen Moses, Zara Shubber, Marie-Claude Boily

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. HIV Modes of Transmission in Sudan in 2014.International journal of health policy and management · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Genetic Cluster Analysis for HIV Prevention.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2018
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sharmistha MishraDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom; St. Michael's Hospital, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Michael PicklesDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
James F BlanchardCentre for Global Public Health, Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Stephen MosesCentre for Global Public Health, Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Zara ShubberDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Marie-Claude BoilyDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Imperial College London · GBUniversity of Manitoba · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe static Modes of Transmission (MOT) model predicts the annual fraction of new HIV infections acquired across subgroups (MOT metric), and is used to focus HIV prevention. Using synthetic epidemics via a dynamical model, we assessed the validity of the MOT metric for identifying epidemic drivers (behaviours or subgroups that are sufficient and necessary for HIV to establish and persist), and the potential consequence of MOT-guided policies. METHODS AND

findingsTo generate benchmark MOT metrics for comparison, we simulated three synthetic epidemics (concentrated, mixed, and generalized) with different epidemic drivers using a dynamical model of heterosexual HIV transmission. MOT metrics from generic and complex MOT models were compared against the benchmark, and to the contribution of epidemic drivers to overall HIV transmission (cumulative population attributable fraction over t years, PAFt). The complex MOT metric was similar to the benchmark, but the generic MOT underestimated the fraction of infections in epidemic drivers. The benchmark MOT metric identified epidemic drivers early in the epidemics. Over time, the MOT metric did not identify epidemic drivers. This was not due to simplified MOT models or biased parameters but occurred because the MOT metric (irrespective of the model used to generate it) underestimates the contribution of epidemic drivers to HIV transmission over time (PAF5-30). MOT-directed policies that fail to reach epidemic drivers could undermine long-term impact on HIV incidence, and achieve a similar impact as random allocation of additional resources.

conclusionsIrrespective of how it is obtained, the MOT metric is not a valid stand-alone tool to identify epidemic drivers, and has limited additional value in guiding the prioritization of HIV prevention targets. Policy-makers should use the MOT model judiciously, in combination with other approaches, to identify epidemic drivers.

Indexed as

Epidemiological MonitoringModels, TheoreticalCommunicable Disease ControlHIVHIV InfectionsHumansIncidence

Identifiers

PMID25014543
PMCPMC4090151
OpenAlexW2031173772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.