Table 1. Resulting parameters of the simulations (mean and 95% BCI1) parameters of the mean infection and of the prevalence of S. mansoni and hookworm in Azaguié, Zouatta, and Fagnampleu in Côte d’Ivoire.
S. mansoni | Hookworm | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Parameters | Azaguié | Zouatta | Fagnampleu | Azaguié | Zouatta | Fagnampleu |
(N = 500, k = 2)2 | (N = 559, k = 3) | (N = 354, k = 4) | (N = 500, k = 2) | (N = 559, k = 3) | (N = 354, k = 4) | |
Observed prevalence (%) | 35.6 (31.4, 39.8) | 40.8 (36.7, 44.9) | 76.3 (71.8, 80.5) | 11.4 (8.6, 14.2) | 35.4 (31.5, 39.4) | 59.0 (53.9, 64.1) |
Estimated ‘true’ prevalence (%) | 49.3 (40.4, 61.2) | 59.6 (50.7, 69.3) | 83.8 (78.3, 89.3) | 14.3 (10.9, 18.5) | 43.7 (38.6, 49.2) | 62.2 (56.6, 67.6) |
Observed mean infection (EPG)3 | 179 (171, 188) | 152 (141, 163) | 307 (289, 325) | 396 (326, 466) | 331 (301, 361) | 283 (260, 306) |
Estimated mean infection (EPG)4 | 132 (101, 167) | 104 (84, 128) | 282 (249, 321) | 220 (150, 316) | 261 (208, 325) | 262 (221, 312) |
Sensitivity5 | ||||||
1 sample (%) | 59.4 (47.6, 70.2) | 48.0 (40.8, 55.8) | 70.2 (66.1, 74.1) | 57.1 (44.5, 68.8) | 47.1 (41.7, 52.5) | 53.8 (50.1, 57.7) |
2 samples (%) | 72.9 (59.5, 84.6) | 62.3 (53.5, 71.3) | 83.5 (79.3, 87.3) | 81.0 (69.1, 90.1) | 71.8 (65.9, 77.3) | 78.5 (74.59, 81.9) |
3 samples (%) | - | 69.0 (59.8, 78.2) | 88.2 (84.2, 91.8) | - | 84.9 (80.0, 89.1) | 89.9 (87.3, 92.2) |
4 samples (%) | - | - | 90.7 (86.8, 94.0) | - | - | 95.2 (93.6, 96.6) |
Day-to-day variation (r) | 1.10 (0.80, 1.46) | 0.83 (0.67, 1.02) | 0.87 (0.77, 0.99) | 0.25 (0.15, 0.37) | 0.15 (0.13, 0.19) | 0.20 (0.17, 0.23) |
Aggregation (α) | 0.09 (0.05, 0.13) | 0.08 (0.05, 0.11) | 0.05 (0.04, 0.07) | 0.22 (0.04, 0.90) | 0.32 (0.06, 1.23) | 0.19 (0.05, 0.68) |
1 Parameter posterior mean estimates and 95% Bayesian credible interval
2 k is the number of samples taken in a study; N the number of participants with at least one sample
3 The observed mean infection is the mean egg count of all individuals tested positive in at least one Kato-Katz thick smear
4 The estimated mean infection is μf + μm
5 The sensitivity was calculated using eq 4