Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27248818›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Comparison of Respondent Driven Sampling Estimators to Determine HIV Prevalence and Population Characteristics among Men Who Have Sex with Men in Moscow, Russia.

Andrea L Wirtz, Shruti H Mehta, Carl Latkin, Carla E Zelaya, Noya Galai, Alena Peryshkina, Vladimir Mogilnyi, Petr Dzhigun, Irina Kostetskaya, Chris Beyrer

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Bayesian Estimation of MSM Population Size in Côte d'Ivoire.Statistics and public policy (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

10 authors.

Andrea L WirtzCenter for Public Health and Human Rights, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, United States of America.
Shruti H MehtaDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, United States of America.
Carl LatkinDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, United States of America.
Carla E ZelayaCenter for Public Health and Human Rights, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, United States of America.
Noya GalaiDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, United States of America.
Alena PeryshkinaAIDS Infoshare, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Vladimir MogilnyiAIDS Infoshare, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Petr DzhigunAIDS Infoshare, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Irina KostetskayaAIDS Infoshare, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Chris BeyrerCenter for Public Health and Human Rights, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, United States of America.

Funding

Vaccine Response and Immunotherapeutics SWGP30AI094189 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Richard E. Chaisson · 2012 to 2026
$67.0M
High Risk Men: Identity, Health Risks, HIV/AIDSR01MH085574 · NIMH · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI BEYRER, CHRISTOPHER C. · 2009 to 2013
$2.7M
NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI094189NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH085574
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Analytically distinct estimators have been proposed for the calculation of population-based estimates derived from respondent-driven sampling (RDS), yet there have been few comparisons of the inferences from these estimators using empirical data. We compared estimates produced by unweighted analysis used to calculate sample proportions and by three available estimators that are used to calculate population proportions, RDS-I, RDS-II (Volz-Heckathorn), and Gile's RDS-SS. Data were derived from a cross-sectional, RDS study of men who have sex with men (MSM) conducted from October 2010 to April 2013 in Moscow, Russia (N = 1,376, recruitment depth: 31 waves). Analyses investigated the influence of key parameters: recruitment depth, homophily, and network size on sample and population estimates. Variability in results produced by the estimators and recruitment depth were statistically compared using the coefficient of variation (CV). Sample proportions had the least variability across different recruitment depths, compared to the RDS estimators. Population estimates tended to differ at lower recruitment depth but were approximately equal after reaching sampling equilibrium, highlighting the importance of sampling to greater recruitment depth. All estimators incorporate inverse probability weighting using self-reported network size, explaining the similarities in across population estimates and the difference of these estimates relative to sample proportions. Current biases and limitations associated with RDS estimators are discussed.

Indexed as

HIV SeroprevalenceHomosexuality, MaleAdultCross-Sectional StudiesHIV InfectionsHumansMaleMoscow

Identifiers

PMID27248818
PMCPMC4889072

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.