ArticleMedical and veterinary entomology2025
Bayesian population-based assessment of ascertainment bias in flea-borne typhus surveillance in California, 2011-2019.
Article in Medical and veterinary entomology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bayesian population-based assessment of ascertainment bias in flea-borne typhus surveillance in California, 2011-2019.Medical and veterinary entomology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In California, public health disease surveillance data for flea-borne typhus (FBT) are generated by healthcare providers and laboratories who are responsible for notifying local health jurisdictions when the disease is detected. When accounting for the associations between socioeconomic status (SES) factors (age, race and ethnicity, poverty, unemployment, housing status and land use), R. typhi reservoir host presence (e.g., rats, cats, opossums), and healthcare-seeking behaviours, it is reasonable to consider whether these factors also lead to under-reporting of FBT surveillance and distorted estimations of incidence. This study aimed to evaluate population-level associations between SES factors and FBT surveillance reporting using a Bayesian hierarchical model including a spatially autocorrelated random effect. Census tract-level covariates were sourced from the American Community Survey and Healthy Places Index (HPI). Specifying a zero-inflated Poisson distribution to FBT surveillance report counts, we estimated spatially smoothed, census tract-level estimates of FBT surveillance report rates and attributed variability in report rates to census tract characteristics. Socioeconomic advantage, as measured by the HPI, had the largest effect (IRR = 1.34 [1.07, 1.69]), corresponding to a 34% increase in FBT surveillance reporting for every point increase in HPI score for census tracts. The results herein suggest that FBT surveillance may be biased in its ascertainment of surveillance data, which may be helpful in contextualising and interpreting current trends in FBT epidemiology.
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.