Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27262354›Full record

ReviewInfection, genetics and evolution : journal of molecular epidemiology and evolutionary genetics in infectious diseases2016

Integrating molecular epidemiology and social network analysis to study infectious diseases: Towards a socio-molecular era for public health.

Tetyana I Vasylyeva, Samuel R Friedman, Dimitrios Paraskevis, Gkikas Magiorkinis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Infection, genetics and evolution : journal of molecular epidemiology and evolutionary genetics in infectious diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Leveraging Phylogenetics to Understand HIV Transmission and Partner Notification Networks.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2018
    Article
  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

4 authors.

Tetyana I VasylyevaDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, OX1 3PS Oxford, United Kingdom.
Samuel R FriedmanInstitute for Infectious Disease Research, National Development and Research Institutes, New York, NY 10010, USA.
Dimitrios ParaskevisDepartment of Hygiene, Epidemiology, and Medical Statistics, Athens University Medical School, 75, M. Asias Street, Athens 115 27, Greece.
Gkikas MagiorkinisDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, OX1 3PS Oxford, United Kingdom. Electronic address: gkikas.magiorkinis@zoo.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

Transdisciplinary Theoretical Svnthesis and Development CoreP30DA011041 · NIDA · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI Holly Hagan · 1998 to 2026
$38.9M
Preventing HIV Transmission by Recently-Infected Drug UsersDP1DA034989 · NIDA · NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH INSTITUTES, INC. · PI FRIEDMAN, SAMUEL R · 2012 to 2016
$3.8M
Medical Research Council MR/K010565/1NIDA NIH HHS DP1 DA034989NIDA NIH HHS P30 DA011041
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The number of public health applications for molecular epidemiology and social network analysis has increased rapidly since the improvement in computational capacities and the development of new sequencing techniques. Currently, molecular epidemiology methods are used in a variety of settings: from infectious disease surveillance systems to the description of disease transmission pathways. The latter are of great epidemiological importance as they let us describe how a virus spreads in a community, make predictions for the further epidemic developments, and plan preventive interventions. Social network methods are used to understand how infections spread through communities and what the risk factors for this are, as well as in improved contact tracing and message-dissemination interventions. Research is needed on how to combine molecular and social network data as both include essential, but not fully sufficient information on infection transmission pathways. The main differences between the two data sources are that, firstly, social network data include uninfected individuals unlike the molecular data sampled only from infected network members. Thus, social network data include more detailed picture of a network and can improve inferences made from molecular data. Secondly, network data refer to the current state and interactions within the social network, while molecular data refer to the time points when transmissions happened, which might have happened years before the sampling date. As of today, there have been attempts to combine and compare the data obtained from the two sources. Even though there is no consensus on whether and how social and genetic data complement each other, this research might significantly improve our understanding of how viruses spread through communities.

Indexed as

Molecular EpidemiologySocial NetworkingCommunicable DiseasesHumansPhylogenyRisk FactorsInfectious diseasesMolecular epidemiologyPhylodynamicsPhylogeneticsSocial networksViruses

Identifiers

PMID27262354
PMCPMC5135626

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.