Several statistical methods have been proposed for estimating the infection prevalence based on pooled samples, but these methods generally presume the application of perfect diagnostic tests, which in practice do not exist. To optimize prevalence estimation based on pooled samples, currently available and new statistical models were described and compared. Three groups were tested: (a) Frequentist models, (b) Monte Carlo Markov-Chain (MCMC) Bayesian models, and (c) Exact Bayesian Computation (EBC) models. Simulated data allowed the comparison of the models, including testing the performance under complex situations such as imperfect tests with a sensitivity varying according to the pool weight. In addition, all models were applied to data derived from the literature, to demonstrate the influence of the model on real-prevalence estimates. All models were implemented in the freely available R and OpenBUGS software and are presented in Appendix S1. Bayesian models can flexibly take into account the imperfect sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic test (as well as the influence of pool-related or external variables) and are therefore the method of choice for calculating population prevalence based on pooled samples. However, when using such complex models, very precise information on test characteristics is needed, which may in general not be available.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 February 2016.
All research outputs
#9,371,456
of 34,518,147 outputs
Outputs from Medical & Veterinary Entomology
#429
of 1,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,211
of 209,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical & Veterinary Entomology
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,518,147 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,516 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 209,675 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.
