ArticleBMC global and public health2025
Understanding the impact of covariates for trachoma prevalence prediction using geostatistical methods.
Article in BMC global and public health, 2025. 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.
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
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundModel-based geostatistics (MBG) is increasingly used for estimating the prevalence of neglected tropical diseases, including trachoma, in low- and middle-income countries. We sought to investigate the impact of spatially referenced covariates to improve spatial predictions for trachomatous inflammation-follicular (TF) prevalence generated by MBG. To this end, we assessed the ability of spatial covariates to explain the spatial variation of TF prevalence and to reduce uncertainty in the assessment of TF elimination for pre-defined evaluation units (EUs).
methodsWe used data from Tropical Data-supported population-based trachoma prevalence surveys conducted in EUs in Ethiopia, Malawi, Niger, and Nigeria between 2016 and 2023. We then compared two models: a model that used only age, a variable required for the standardization of prevalence as used in the routine, standard prevalence estimation, and a model that included spatial covariates in addition to age. For each fitted model, we reported estimates of the parameters that quantify the strength of residual spatial correlation and 95% prediction intervals as the measure of uncertainty.
resultsThe strength of the association between covariates and TF prevalence varied within and across countries. For some EUs, spatially referenced covariates explained most of the spatial variation and thus allowed us to generate predictive inferences for TF prevalence with a substantially reduced uncertainty, compared with models without the spatial covariates. For example, the prediction interval for TF prevalence in the areas with the lowest TF prevalence in Nigeria narrowed substantially, from a width of 2.9 to 0.7. This reduction occurred as the inclusion of spatial covariates significantly decreased the variance of the spatial Gaussian process in the geostatistical model. In other cases, spatial covariates only led to minor gains, with slightly smaller prediction intervals for the EU-level TF prevalence or even a wider prediction interval.
conclusionsAlthough spatially referenced covariates could help reduce prediction uncertainty in some cases, the gain could be very minor, or uncertainty could even increase. When considering the routine, standardized use of MBG methods to support national trachoma programs worldwide, we recommend that spatial covariate use be avoided.
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.