ArticleThe international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease2021
An approach for improving the quality of country-level TB modelling.
Article in The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Subnational burden estimates to find missing people with tuberculosis: wrong but useful?BMC global and public health · 2024Review
- Cost-effectiveness and health impact of screening and treatment of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection among formerly incarcerated individuals in Brazil: a Markov modelling study.The Lancet. Global health · 2024Article
- Improving the contribution of mathematical modelling evidence to guidelines and policy: Experiences from tuberculosis.Epidemics · 2024Article
- Tabby2: a user-friendly web tool for forecasting state-level TB outcomes in the United States.BMC medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mathematical modelling is increasingly used to inform budgeting and strategic decision-making by national TB programmes. Despite the importance of these decisions, there is currently no mechanism to review and confirm the appropriateness of modelling analyses. We have developed a benchmarking, reporting, and review (BRR) approach and accompanying tools to allow constructive review of country-level TB modelling applications. This approach has been piloted in five modelling applications and the results of this study have been used to revise and finalise the approach. The BRR approach consists of 1) quantitative benchmarks against which model assumptions and results can be compared, 2) standardised reporting templates and review criteria, and 3) a multi-stage review process providing feedback to modellers during the application, as well as a summary evaluation after completion. During the pilot, use of the tools prompted important changes in the approaches taken to modelling. The pilot also identified issues beyond the scope of a review mechanism, such as a lack of empirical evidence and capacity constraints. This approach provides independent evaluation of the appropriateness of modelling decisions during the course of an application, allowing meaningful changes to be made before results are used to inform decision-making. The use of these tools can improve the quality and transparency of country-level TB modelling applications.
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.