Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35799992›Full record

ReviewBiochemia medica2022

The apparent prevalence, the true prevalence.

Farrokh Habibzadeh, Parham Habibzadeh, Mahboobeh Yadollahie

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biochemia medica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Arbovirus Prevalence and Vulnerability Assessment Through Entomological Surveillance in Ponce, Puerto Rico.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Interference ofVeterinary sciences · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Farrokh HabibzadehGlobal Virus Network, Middle East Region, Shiraz, Iran.
Parham HabibzadehResearch Center for Health Sciences, Institute of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Mahboobeh YadollahieFreelance Researcher, Shiraz, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Serologic tests are important for conducting seroepidemiologic and prevalence studies. However, the tests used are typically imperfect and produce false-positive and false-negative results. This is why the seropositive rate (apparent prevalence) does not typically reflect the true prevalence of the disease or condition of interest. Herein, we discuss the way the true prevalence could be derived from the apparent prevalence and test sensitivity and specificity. A computer simulation based on the Monte-Carlo algorithm was also used to further examine a situation where the measured test sensitivity and specificity are also uncertain. We then complete our review with a real example. The apparent prevalence observed in many prevalence studies published in medical literature is a biased estimation and cannot be interpreted correctly unless we correct the value.

Indexed as

PrevalenceComputer SimulationHumansSensitivity and SpecificitySeroepidemiologic StudiesSerologic Testsdiagnostic testsprevalencesensitivityseroepidemiologic studiesspecificity

Identifiers

PMID35799992
PMCPMC9195606

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.