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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Davies, Bethan, Anderson, Sarah-Jane, Turner, Katy ME, Ward, Helen
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