Cargando…
How robust are the natural history parameters used in chlamydia transmission dynamic models? A systematic review
Transmission dynamic models linked to economic analyses often form part of the decision making process when introducing new chlamydia screening interventions. Outputs from these transmission dynamic models can vary depending on the values of the parameters used to describe the infection. Therefore t...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3922653/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24476335 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-4682-11-8 |
_version_ | 1782303479310581760 |
---|---|
author | Davies, Bethan Anderson, Sarah-Jane Turner, Katy ME Ward, Helen |
author_facet | Davies, Bethan Anderson, Sarah-Jane Turner, Katy ME Ward, Helen |
author_sort | Davies, Bethan |
collection | PubMed |
description | Transmission dynamic models linked to economic analyses often form part of the decision making process when introducing new chlamydia screening interventions. Outputs from these transmission dynamic models can vary depending on the values of the parameters used to describe the infection. Therefore these values can have an important influence on policy and resource allocation. The risk of progression from infection to pelvic inflammatory disease has been extensively studied but the parameters which govern the transmission dynamics are frequently neglected. We conducted a systematic review of transmission dynamic models linked to economic analyses of chlamydia screening interventions to critically assess the source and variability of the proportion of infections that are asymptomatic, the duration of infection and the transmission probability. We identified nine relevant studies in Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane database. We found that there is a wide variation in their natural history parameters, including an absolute difference in the proportion of asymptomatic infections of 25% in women and 75% in men, a six-fold difference in the duration of asymptomatic infection and a four-fold difference in the per act transmission probability. We consider that much of this variation can be explained by a lack of consensus in the literature. We found that a significant proportion of parameter values were referenced back to the early chlamydia literature, before the introduction of nucleic acid modes of diagnosis and the widespread testing of asymptomatic individuals. In conclusion, authors should use high quality contemporary evidence to inform their parameter values, clearly document their assumptions and make appropriate use of sensitivity analysis. This will help to make models more transparent and increase their utility to policy makers. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3922653 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-39226532014-02-13 How robust are the natural history parameters used in chlamydia transmission dynamic models? A systematic review Davies, Bethan Anderson, Sarah-Jane Turner, Katy ME Ward, Helen Theor Biol Med Model Review Transmission dynamic models linked to economic analyses often form part of the decision making process when introducing new chlamydia screening interventions. Outputs from these transmission dynamic models can vary depending on the values of the parameters used to describe the infection. Therefore these values can have an important influence on policy and resource allocation. The risk of progression from infection to pelvic inflammatory disease has been extensively studied but the parameters which govern the transmission dynamics are frequently neglected. We conducted a systematic review of transmission dynamic models linked to economic analyses of chlamydia screening interventions to critically assess the source and variability of the proportion of infections that are asymptomatic, the duration of infection and the transmission probability. We identified nine relevant studies in Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane database. We found that there is a wide variation in their natural history parameters, including an absolute difference in the proportion of asymptomatic infections of 25% in women and 75% in men, a six-fold difference in the duration of asymptomatic infection and a four-fold difference in the per act transmission probability. We consider that much of this variation can be explained by a lack of consensus in the literature. We found that a significant proportion of parameter values were referenced back to the early chlamydia literature, before the introduction of nucleic acid modes of diagnosis and the widespread testing of asymptomatic individuals. In conclusion, authors should use high quality contemporary evidence to inform their parameter values, clearly document their assumptions and make appropriate use of sensitivity analysis. This will help to make models more transparent and increase their utility to policy makers. BioMed Central 2014-01-30 /pmc/articles/PMC3922653/ /pubmed/24476335 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-4682-11-8 Text en Copyright © 2014 Davies et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Review Davies, Bethan Anderson, Sarah-Jane Turner, Katy ME Ward, Helen How robust are the natural history parameters used in chlamydia transmission dynamic models? A systematic review |
title | How robust are the natural history parameters used in chlamydia transmission dynamic models? A systematic review |
title_full | How robust are the natural history parameters used in chlamydia transmission dynamic models? A systematic review |
title_fullStr | How robust are the natural history parameters used in chlamydia transmission dynamic models? A systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | How robust are the natural history parameters used in chlamydia transmission dynamic models? A systematic review |
title_short | How robust are the natural history parameters used in chlamydia transmission dynamic models? A systematic review |
title_sort | how robust are the natural history parameters used in chlamydia transmission dynamic models? a systematic review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3922653/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24476335 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-4682-11-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT daviesbethan howrobustarethenaturalhistoryparametersusedinchlamydiatransmissiondynamicmodelsasystematicreview AT andersonsarahjane howrobustarethenaturalhistoryparametersusedinchlamydiatransmissiondynamicmodelsasystematicreview AT turnerkatyme howrobustarethenaturalhistoryparametersusedinchlamydiatransmissiondynamicmodelsasystematicreview AT wardhelen howrobustarethenaturalhistoryparametersusedinchlamydiatransmissiondynamicmodelsasystematicreview |