Dataset Information

Augmented cross-sectional studies with abbreviated follow-up for estimating HIV incidence.

ABSTRACT: Cross-sectional HIV incidence estimation based on a sensitive and less-sensitive test offers great advantages over the traditional cohort study. However, its use has been limited due to concerns about the false negative rate of the less-sensitive test, reflecting the phenomenon that some subjects may remain negative permanently on the less-sensitive test. Wang and Lagakos (2010, Biometrics 66, 864-874) propose an augmented cross-sectional design that provides one way to estimate the size of the infected population who remain negative permanently and subsequently incorporate this information in the cross-sectional incidence estimator. In an augmented cross-sectional study, subjects who test negative on the less-sensitive test in the cross-sectional survey are followed forward for transition into the nonrecent state, at which time they would test positive on the less-sensitive test. However, considerable uncertainty exists regarding the appropriate length of follow-up and the size of the infected population who remain nonreactive permanently to the less-sensitive test. In this article, we assess the impact of varying follow-up time on the resulting incidence estimators from an augmented cross-sectional study, evaluate the robustness of cross-sectional estimators to assumptions about the existence and the size of the subpopulation who will remain negative permanently, and propose a new estimator based on abbreviated follow-up time (AF). Compared to the original estimator from an augmented cross-sectional study, the AF estimator allows shorter follow-up time and does not require estimation of the mean window period, defined as the average time between detectability of HIV infection with the sensitive and less-sensitive tests. It is shown to perform well in a wide range of settings. We discuss when the AF estimator would be expected to perform well and offer design considerations for an augmented cross-sectional study with abbreviated follow-up.

SUBMITTER: Claggett B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3182305 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Augmented cross-sectional studies with abbreviated follow-up for estimating HIV incidence.

Claggett B B Lagakos S W SW Wang R R

Biometrics 20110613 1

Cross-sectional HIV incidence estimation based on a sensitive and less-sensitive test offers great advantages over the traditional cohort study. However, its use has been limited due to concerns about the false negative rate of the less-sensitive test, reflecting the phenomenon that some subjects may remain negative permanently on the less-sensitive test. Wang and Lagakos (2010, Biometrics 66, 864-874) propose an augmented cross-sectional design that provides one way to estimate the size of the ...[more]

PMID: 21668904

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:In outcome research, incomplete follow-up is a major, yet potentially correctable source of bias. Cross-sectional surveys may theoretically increase completeness of follow-up, but low response rates are reported typically. We investigated whether a pre-notification letter improved patient availability for follow-up phone interviews and thereby improved cross-sectional survey yield. METHODS:A consecutive series of vascular patients was randomly divided into a trial and a validation population. The trial population was then randomized 1:1 to one of two cross-sectional contact strategies: Strategy 1 consisted of direct contact attempts by up to 12 systematically timed phone calls, whereas Strategy 2 used a personalized pre-notification letter to arrange for scheduled phone call interviews. Response rates, average time and efforts needed per patient and overall survey duration were compared. Subsequently, trial findings were externally validated in the validation population. RESULTS:Of 728 consecutive patients, 370 were allocated to the trial population. Trial patients contacted by strategy 1 (n = 183) had a similar profile when compared to trial patients contacted by strategy 2 (n = 187). Follow-up periods following surgery (54.3 versus 53.6 months) and all-cause mortality rates (21.3% versus 18.7%) were comparable between the trial groups. Cross-sectional information on survival outcomes was almost complete after both contact strategies (99.5% versus 98.9%, P = 1.0). In 144/187 strategy 2 patients (77%) interviews were scheduled successfully necessitating significantly less contact attempts (median of 1.3 versus 2.3 per patient, P<0.0001). However, invested time per patient was similar between the groups (median of 10.1 versus 9.6 minutes), and survey strategy 1 completed earlier (median time to contact 4 versus 11 days, P<0.0001). Therefore, strategy 1 was validated in the validation population (n = 358): a low lost to follow-up rate below 1% (P = 1.0) was reconfirmed necessitating an average of 2.3 contact attempts per patient. CONCLUSIONS:Both contact strategies were equally successful in contacting almost all patients cross-sectionally. If systematically timed, direct phone calls were less complicated to organize and faster completed. Given the low time and effort per patient, outcome studies should invest in systematic follow-up surveys to minimize attrition bias.

Dataset Information

Augmented cross-sectional studies with abbreviated follow-up for estimating HIV incidence.

Publications

Augmented cross-sectional studies with abbreviated follow-up for estimating HIV incidence.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets