2017
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyx134
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Incidence rate estimation, periodic testing and the limitations of the mid-point imputation approach

Abstract: BackgroundIt is common to use the mid-point between the latest-negative and earliest-positive test dates as the date of the infection event. However, the accuracy of the mid-point method has yet to be systematically quantified for incidence studies once participants start to miss their scheduled test dates.MethodsWe used a simulation-based approach to generate an infectious disease epidemic for an incidence cohort with a high (80–100%), moderate (60–79.9%), low (40–59.9%) and poor (30–39.9%) testing rate. Next… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
78
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(80 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
2
78
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The findings were robust to different model specifications, different age-eligibility criteria, differing methods of constructing "communities," and the inclusion of differing control variables (including being robust to changes in sexual behaviour, for example). Further, methods to impute the date of HIV seroconversion were systematically investigated and the results were found to be robust to participant selfselection associated with missed test dates and drop-out [54,55]. It is thus unlikely that any collection of systematic biases could consistently and simultaneously explain the findings across the different studies conducted within households, couples, communities, population sub-groups, genders, and using differing outcome metrics (and in one case, the outcome of a different disease-i.e., newly diagnosed TB infection).…”
Section: Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The findings were robust to different model specifications, different age-eligibility criteria, differing methods of constructing "communities," and the inclusion of differing control variables (including being robust to changes in sexual behaviour, for example). Further, methods to impute the date of HIV seroconversion were systematically investigated and the results were found to be robust to participant selfselection associated with missed test dates and drop-out [54,55]. It is thus unlikely that any collection of systematic biases could consistently and simultaneously explain the findings across the different studies conducted within households, couples, communities, population sub-groups, genders, and using differing outcome metrics (and in one case, the outcome of a different disease-i.e., newly diagnosed TB infection).…”
Section: Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Partner's HIV status was considered as unknown if the partner's HIV test result was unavailable or unknown at the time of the partnership formation. We performed a sensitivity analysis where we imputed a random date of seroconversion from a uniform distribution bounded by the latest‐negative and earliest‐positive test dates (Table and Figure ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, we assigned the timing of seroconversion as a random date rather than the commonly used midpoint to reduce on the potential for overestimation of HIV risk during episodes with MSVs. 25,26 Also, the number of events per predictor variable (EPV) in the multivariable model was relatively low (8.5) compared with the recommended minimum EPV of 10. 50 Although this low EPV can affect model-based inferences, the strong evidence for the association between MSV and HIV incidence in both the simple and multivariable models suggests that our conclusions could be valid.…”
Section: Biomedical Factorsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Furthermore, instead of assigning the date of seroconversion as midpoint between the last-negative and firstpositive test dates, we assigned a random date in this interval, thereby reducing on the artifactual clustering of seroconversion times in the middle of observation periods with missed scheduled testing. 25,26 Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the association between the number of missed study visits (MSVs) within episodes of 2 consecutively attended visits and subsequent HIV risk in a predominantly FSW cohort attending a dedicated clinic in Kampala, Uganda.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%