ArticleTransactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene2018
Diagnosing risk factors alongside mass drug administration using serial diagnostic tests-which test first?
Article in Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: When tests are used in series to determine individual risk factors and infection status in a mass drug administration (MDA), the diagnostics, test order and subsequent treatment decisions (the testing algorithm) affect population-level treatment coverage and cost, but there is no existing framework for evaluating which algorithm optimizes any given outcome. Methods: We present a mathematical tool (with spreadsheet implementation) to analyse the effect of test ordering, illustrated using treatment for onchocerciasis in an area where high-burden Loa loa co-infections present a known risk factor. Results: The prevalence of the infection and risk factor have a non-linear impact on the optimal ordering of tests. Testing for the MDA infection first always leaves more infected people untreated but fewer people with the risk factor being misclassified. The cost of the treatment given to infected individuals with the risk factor does not affect which algorithm is more cost effective. Conclusions: For a given test and treat algorithm and its costs, the correct strategy depends on the expected prevalence. In most cases, when the apparent prevalence of the target infection is greater than the apparent prevalence of the risk factor, it is cheaper to do the risk factor test first, and vice versa.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.