Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36469517›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2022

Leveraging infectious disease models to interpret randomized controlled trials: Controlling enteric pathogen transmission through water, sanitation, and hygiene interventions.

Andrew F Brouwer, Marisa C Eisenberg, Kevin M Bakker, Savannah N Boerger, Mondal H Zahid, Matthew C Freeman, Joseph N S Eisenberg

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew F BrouwerDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3779-5287
Marisa C EisenbergDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4221-830X
Kevin M BakkerDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7084-9291
Savannah N BoergerDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5428-6073
Mondal H ZahidDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1832-8974
Matthew C FreemanDepartment of Environmental Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Joseph N S EisenbergDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8019-296X
University of Michigan · USEmory University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluate hypotheses in specific contexts and are often considered the gold standard of evidence for infectious disease interventions, but their results cannot immediately generalize to other contexts (e.g., different populations, interventions, or disease burdens). Mechanistic models are one approach to generalizing findings between contexts, but infectious disease transmission models (IDTMs) are not immediately suited for analyzing RCTs, since they often rely on time-series surveillance data. We developed an IDTM framework to explain relative risk outcomes of an infectious disease RCT and applied it to a water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) RCT. This model can generalize the RCT results to other contexts and conditions. We developed this compartmental IDTM framework to account for key WASH RCT factors: i) transmission across multiple environmental pathways, ii) multiple interventions applied individually and in combination, iii) adherence to interventions or preexisting conditions, and iv) the impact of individuals not enrolled in the study. We employed a hybrid sampling and estimation framework to obtain posterior estimates of mechanistic parameter sets consistent with empirical outcomes. We illustrated our model using WASH Benefits Bangladesh RCT data (n = 17,187). Our model reproduced reported diarrheal prevalence in this RCT. The baseline estimate of the basic reproduction number [Formula: see text] for the control arm (1.10, 95% CrI: 1.07, 1.16) corresponded to an endemic prevalence of 9.5% (95% CrI: 7.4, 13.7%) in the absence of interventions or preexisting WASH conditions. No single pathway was likely able to sustain transmission: pathway-specific [Formula: see text] for water, fomites, and all other pathways were 0.42 (95% CrI: 0.03, 0.97), 0.20 (95% CrI: 0.02, 0.59), and 0.48 (95% CrI: 0.02, 0.94), respectively. An IDTM approach to evaluating RCTs can complement RCT analysis by providing a rigorous framework for generating data-driven hypotheses that explain trial findings, particularly unexpected null results, opening up existing data to deeper epidemiological understanding.

Indexed as

Communicable DiseasesSanitationHumansHygieneRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicWaterWater

Identifiers

PMID36469517
PMCPMC9754603
OpenAlexW4310705100

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.