ArticleThe Journal of infectious diseases2021
Modeling Optimal Laboratory Testing Strategies for Bacterial Meningitis Surveillance in Africa.
Article in The Journal of infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors at 12 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Since 2010, the introduction of an effective serogroup A meningococcal conjugate vaccine has led to the near-elimination of invasive Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A disease in Africa's meningitis belt. However, a significant burden of disease and epidemics due to other bacterial meningitis pathogens remain in the region. High-quality surveillance data with laboratory confirmation is important to monitor circulating bacterial meningitis pathogens and design appropriate interventions, but complete testing of all reported cases is often infeasible. Here, we use case-based surveillance data from 5 countries in the meningitis belt to determine how accurately estimates of the distribution of causative pathogens would represent the true distribution under different laboratory testing strategies. Detailed case-based surveillance data was collected by the MenAfriNet surveillance consortium in up to 3 seasons from participating districts in 5 countries. For each unique country-season pair, we simulated the accuracy of laboratory surveillance by repeatedly drawing subsets of tested cases and calculating the margin of error of the estimated proportion of cases caused by each pathogen (the greatest pathogen-specific absolute error in proportions between the subset and the full set of cases). Across the 12 country-season pairs analyzed, the 95% credible intervals around estimates of the proportion of cases caused by each pathogen had median widths of ±0.13, ±0.07, and ±0.05, respectively, when random samples of 25%, 50%, and 75% of cases were selected for testing. The level of geographic stratification in the sampling process did not meaningfully affect accuracy estimates. These findings can inform testing thresholds for laboratory surveillance programs in the meningitis belt.
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.