ArticleJournal of medical statistics and informatics2019
Joint modelling of time-to-clinical malaria and parasite count in a cohort in an endemic area.
Article in Journal of medical statistics and informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Recurrent Times-to-Clinical Malaria Episodes andFrontiers in epidemiology · 2022Article
- Bayesian Individual Dynamic Predictions with Uncertainty of Longitudinal Biomarkers and Risks of Survival Events in a Joint Modelling Framework: a Comparison Between Stan, Monolix, and NONMEM.The AAPS journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn malaria endemic areas such as sub-Saharan Africa, repeated exposure to malaria results in acquired immunity to clinical disease but not infection. In prospective studies, time-to-clinical malaria and longitudinal parasite count trajectory are often analysed separately which may result in inefficient estimates since these two processes can be associated. Including parasite count as a time-dependent covariate in a model of time-to-clinical malaria episode may also be inaccurate because while clinical malaria disease frequently leads to treatment which may instantly affect the level of parasite count, standard time-to-event models require that time-dependent covariates be external to the event process. We investigated whether jointly modelling time-to-clinical malaria disease and longitudinal parasite count improves precision in risk factor estimates and assessed the strength of association between the hazard of clinical malaria and parasite count.
methodsUsing a cohort data of participants enrolled with uncomplicated malaria in Malawi, a conventional Cox Proportional Hazards (PH) model of time-to-first clinical malaria episode with time-dependent parasite count was compared with three competing joint models. The joint models had different association structures linking a quasi-Poisson mixed-effects of parasite count and event-time Cox PH sub-models.
resultsThere were 120 participants of whom 115 (95.8%) had >1 follow-up visit and 100 (87.5%) experienced the episode. Adults >15 years being reference, log hazard ratio for children <5 years was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.17, 1.26) in the joint model with best fit vs. 0.62 (95% CI: 0.04, 1.18) from the conventional Cox PH model. The log hazard ratio for the 5-15 years was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.22, 1.22) in the joint model vs.0.63 (95% CI: 0.11, 1.17) in the Cox PH model. The area under parasite count trajectory was strongly associated with the risk of clinical malaria, with a unit increase corresponding to-0.0012 (95% CI: -0.0021, -0.0004) decrease in log hazard ratio.
conclusionJointly modelling longitudinal parasite count and time-to-clinical malaria disease improves precision in log hazard ratio estimates compared to conventional time-dependent Cox PH model. The improved precision of joint modelling may improve study efficiency and allow for design of clinical trials with relatively lower sample sizes with increased power.
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.