Improved Assessment of

David Gurarie, Anirban Mondal, Martial L Ndeffo-Mbah

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

David GurarieDepartment of Mathematics, Applied Mathematics, and Statistics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

Anirban MondalDepartment of Mathematics, Applied Mathematics, and Statistics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

Martial L Ndeffo-MbahDepartment of Veterinary and Integrative Biosciences, School of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4158-7613

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The conventional diagnostic for Methods: We developed a resampling method that provides unbiased community estimates of prevalence, intensity and other statistics for Results: SCORE data analysis reveals the limited sensitivity of KK stool microscopy and systematic bias of single-day community testing versus multiday testing; for prevalence estimate, it can fall up to 50% below the true value. The proposed SCORE cluster method reduces systematic bias and brings the estimated prevalence values within 5%-10% of the true value. This holds for a broad swath of transmission settings, including SCORE communities, and other data sets. Conclusions: Our SCORE cluster method can markedly improve the

Indexed as

infection intensityprevalenceresamplingSchistosoma

Identifiers

PMID38328495

DOI10.1093/ofid/ofad659

PMCPMC10847808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-ND

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.