Cargando…
Confidence interval methods for antimicrobial resistance surveillance data
BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the greatest global health challenges today, but burden assessment is hindered by uncertainty of AMR prevalence estimates. Geographical representation of AMR estimates typically pools data collected from several laboratories; however, these aggreg...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8191092/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34108041 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13756-021-00960-5 |
_version_ | 1783705810179719168 |
---|---|
author | Kalanxhi, Erta Osena, Gilbert Kapoor, Geetanjali Klein, Eili |
author_facet | Kalanxhi, Erta Osena, Gilbert Kapoor, Geetanjali Klein, Eili |
author_sort | Kalanxhi, Erta |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the greatest global health challenges today, but burden assessment is hindered by uncertainty of AMR prevalence estimates. Geographical representation of AMR estimates typically pools data collected from several laboratories; however, these aggregations may introduce bias by not accounting for the heterogeneity of the population that each laboratory represents. METHODS: We used AMR data from up to 381 laboratories in the United States from The Surveillance Network to evaluate methods for estimating uncertainty of AMR prevalence estimates. We constructed confidence intervals for the proportion of resistant isolates using (1) methods that account for the clustered structure of the data, and (2) standard methods that assume data independence. Using samples of the full dataset with increasing facility coverage levels, we examined how likely the estimated confidence intervals were to include the population mean. RESULTS: Methods constructing 95% confidence intervals while accounting for possible within-cluster correlations (Survey and standard methods adjusted to employ cluster-robust errors), were more likely to include the sample mean than standard methods (Logit, Wilson score and Jeffreys interval) operating under the assumption of independence. While increased geographical coverage improved the probability of encompassing the mean for all methods, large samples still did not compensate for the bias introduced from the violation of the data independence assumption. CONCLUSION: General methods for estimating the confidence intervals of AMR rates that assume data are independent, are likely to produce biased results. When feasible, the clustered structure of the data and any possible intra-cluster variation should be accounted for when calculating confidence intervals around AMR estimates, in order to better capture the uncertainty of prevalence estimates. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13756-021-00960-5. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8191092 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81910922021-06-10 Confidence interval methods for antimicrobial resistance surveillance data Kalanxhi, Erta Osena, Gilbert Kapoor, Geetanjali Klein, Eili Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Research BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the greatest global health challenges today, but burden assessment is hindered by uncertainty of AMR prevalence estimates. Geographical representation of AMR estimates typically pools data collected from several laboratories; however, these aggregations may introduce bias by not accounting for the heterogeneity of the population that each laboratory represents. METHODS: We used AMR data from up to 381 laboratories in the United States from The Surveillance Network to evaluate methods for estimating uncertainty of AMR prevalence estimates. We constructed confidence intervals for the proportion of resistant isolates using (1) methods that account for the clustered structure of the data, and (2) standard methods that assume data independence. Using samples of the full dataset with increasing facility coverage levels, we examined how likely the estimated confidence intervals were to include the population mean. RESULTS: Methods constructing 95% confidence intervals while accounting for possible within-cluster correlations (Survey and standard methods adjusted to employ cluster-robust errors), were more likely to include the sample mean than standard methods (Logit, Wilson score and Jeffreys interval) operating under the assumption of independence. While increased geographical coverage improved the probability of encompassing the mean for all methods, large samples still did not compensate for the bias introduced from the violation of the data independence assumption. CONCLUSION: General methods for estimating the confidence intervals of AMR rates that assume data are independent, are likely to produce biased results. When feasible, the clustered structure of the data and any possible intra-cluster variation should be accounted for when calculating confidence intervals around AMR estimates, in order to better capture the uncertainty of prevalence estimates. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13756-021-00960-5. BioMed Central 2021-06-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8191092/ /pubmed/34108041 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13756-021-00960-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Kalanxhi, Erta Osena, Gilbert Kapoor, Geetanjali Klein, Eili Confidence interval methods for antimicrobial resistance surveillance data |
title | Confidence interval methods for antimicrobial resistance surveillance data |
title_full | Confidence interval methods for antimicrobial resistance surveillance data |
title_fullStr | Confidence interval methods for antimicrobial resistance surveillance data |
title_full_unstemmed | Confidence interval methods for antimicrobial resistance surveillance data |
title_short | Confidence interval methods for antimicrobial resistance surveillance data |
title_sort | confidence interval methods for antimicrobial resistance surveillance data |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8191092/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34108041 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13756-021-00960-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kalanxhierta confidenceintervalmethodsforantimicrobialresistancesurveillancedata AT osenagilbert confidenceintervalmethodsforantimicrobialresistancesurveillancedata AT kapoorgeetanjali confidenceintervalmethodsforantimicrobialresistancesurveillancedata AT kleineili confidenceintervalmethodsforantimicrobialresistancesurveillancedata |