Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31364583›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology and infection2019

Bayesian modelling of a hepatitis A outbreak in men who have sex with men in Sydney, Australia, 1991/1992.

X-S Zhang, A Charlett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

X-S ZhangDepartment of Statistics, Modeling and Economics, National Infection Service,Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance and Control, Public Health England,London,UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6596-4500
A CharlettDepartment of Statistics, Modeling and Economics, National Infection Service,Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance and Control, Public Health England,London,UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To control hepatitis A spread by vaccination, accurate estimation of transmissibility is vital. Regan et al. (2016) proposed a model of hepatitis A virus (HAV) transmission and used least squares to calibrate model to the 1991/1992 HAV outbreak in men who have sex with men (MSM) in Sydney, Australia. Based on the estimate of R0, they obtained the critical immunity of 70% and showed that when the proportion immune <70%, there is a definite chance for outbreaks to take place. The immunity level from previous surveys ranges from 32% to 64% after 1996 while no outbreaks in Australian MSMs have been reported since 1996. Further noticing the ill-distributed parameters, we argue that their estimate of R0 is not accurate. In this study, we revisited their model by Bayesian inference, which has privilege over least squares. We obtained the appropriate posterior distributions of parameters and the estimate of R0 ranges from 1.38 to 2.89, indicating a critical immunity of 65%. The reduction in critical immunity and outbreak probabilities predicts the absence of outbreaks in Australian MSMs since 1996. Our study shows the importance of using appropriate methods to provide reliable and accurate estimates of the model parameters especially the transmissibility.

Indexed as

Communicable Disease ControlDisease OutbreaksAdultAustraliaBayes TheoremCohort StudiesDisease Transmission, InfectiousHepatitis AHepatitis A virusHomosexuality, MaleHumansMaleMarkov ChainsRetrospective StudiesUrban PopulationBayesian inferencemen who have sex with menoutbreak analysisreproduction numbertransmission dynamics

Identifiers

PMID31364583
PMCPMC6625190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.