ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2020
Assessment of Bias in Estimates of Sexual Network Degree using Prospective Cohort Data.
Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- "We adjusted for race": now what? A systematic review of utilization and reporting of race in American Journal of Epidemiology and Epidemiology, 2020-2021.Epidemiologic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Advances in research of HIV transmission networks.Chinese medical journal · 2020Pooled it
- Article
- Incorporating social determinants of health into agent-based models of HIV transmission: methodological challenges and future directions.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2025Review
- Factors Associated With Syphilis Transmission and Acquisition Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: Protocol for a Multisite Egocentric Network Study.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Egocentric sexual networks of men who have sex with men in the United States: Results from the ARTnet study.Epidemics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSexual network degree, a count of ongoing partnerships, plays a critical role in the transmission dynamics of human immunodeficiency virus and other sexually transmitted infections. Researchers often quantify degree using self-reported cross-sectional data on the day of survey, which may result in bias because of uncertainty about future sexual activity.
methodsWe evaluated the bias of a cross-sectional degree measure with a prospective cohort study of men who have sex with men (MSM). At baseline, we asked men about whether recent sexual partnerships were ongoing. We confirmed the true, ongoing status of those partnerships at baseline at follow-up. With logistic regression, we estimated the partnership-level predictors of baseline measure accuracy. With Poisson regression, we estimated the longitudinally confirmed degree as a function of baseline predicted degree.
resultsAcross partnership types, the baseline ongoing status measure was 70% accurate, with higher negative predictive value (91%) than positive predictive value (39%). Partnership exclusivity and racial pairing were associated with higher accuracy. Baseline degree generally overestimated confirmed degree. Bias, or number of ongoing partners different than predicted at baseline, was -0.28 overall, ranging from -1.91 to -0.41 for MSM with any ongoing partnerships at baseline. Comparing MSM of the same baseline degree, the level of bias was stronger for black compared with white MSM, and for younger compared with older MSM.
conclusionsResearch studies may overestimate degree when it is quantified cross-sectionally. Adjustment and structured sensitivity analyses may account for bias in studies of human immunodeficiency virus or sexually transmitted infection prevention interventions.
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.