Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30296266›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2018

Quantifying the value of surveillance data for improving model predictions of lymphatic filariasis elimination.

Edwin Michael, Swarnali Sharma, Morgan E Smith, Panayiota Touloupou, Federica Giardina, Joaquin M Prada, Wilma A Stolk, Deirdre Hollingsworth, Sake J de Vlas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors.

Edwin MichaelDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, South Bend, IN, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9473-4245
Swarnali SharmaDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, South Bend, IN, United States of America.
Morgan E SmithDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, South Bend, IN, United States of America.
Panayiota TouloupouDepartment of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Federica GiardinaDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Joaquin M PradaFaculty of Health & Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.
Wilma A StolkDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Deirdre HollingsworthBig Data Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Sake J de VlasDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMathematical models are increasingly being used to evaluate strategies aiming to achieve the control or elimination of parasitic diseases. Recently, owing to growing realization that process-oriented models are useful for ecological forecasts only if the biological processes are well defined, attention has focused on data assimilation as a means to improve the predictive performance of these models. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL

findingsWe report on the development of an analytical framework to quantify the relative values of various longitudinal infection surveillance data collected in field sites undergoing mass drug administrations (MDAs) for calibrating three lymphatic filariasis (LF) models (EPIFIL, LYMFASIM, and TRANSFIL), and for improving their predictions of the required durations of drug interventions to achieve parasite elimination in endemic populations. The relative information contribution of site-specific data collected at the time points proposed by the WHO monitoring framework was evaluated using model-data updating procedures, and via calculations of the Shannon information index and weighted variances from the probability distributions of the estimated timelines to parasite extinction made by each model. Results show that data-informed models provided more precise forecasts of elimination timelines in each site compared to model-only simulations. Data streams that included year 5 post-MDA microfilariae (mf) survey data, however, reduced each model's uncertainty most compared to data streams containing only baseline and/or post-MDA 3 or longer-term mf survey data irrespective of MDA coverage, suggesting that data up to this monitoring point may be optimal for informing the present LF models. We show that the improvements observed in the predictive performance of the best data-informed models may be a function of temporal changes in inter-parameter interactions. Such best data-informed models may also produce more accurate predictions of the durations of drug interventions required to achieve parasite elimination. SIGNIFICANCE: Knowledge of relative information contributions of model only versus data-informed models is valuable for improving the usefulness of LF model predictions in management decision making, learning system dynamics, and for supporting the design of parasite monitoring programmes. The present results further pinpoint the crucial need for longitudinal infection surveillance data for enhancing the precision and accuracy of model predictions of the intervention durations required to achieve parasite elimination in an endemic location.

Indexed as

Epidemiological MonitoringModels, StatisticalAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolDisease EradicationElephantiasis, FilarialFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedModels, Biological

Identifiers

PMID30296266
PMCPMC6175292

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.