Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2019
Misclassification in defining and diagnosing microcephaly.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kalmin Mariah M, Gower Emily W, Stringer Elizabeth M, Bowman Natalie M, Rogawski McQuade Elizabeth T, Westreich Daniel
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Several health agencies define microcephaly for surveillance purposes using a single criterion, a percentile or Z-score cut-off for newborn head circumference. This definition, however, conflicts with the reported prevalence of microcephaly even in populations with endemic Zika virus.
OBJECTIVE: We explored possible reasons for this conflict, hypothesising that the definition of microcephaly used in some studies may be incompletely described, lacking the additional clinical criteria that clinicians use to make a formal diagnosis. We also explored the potential for misclassification that can result from differences in these definitions, especially when applying a percentile cut-off definition in the presence of the much lower observed prevalence estimates that we believe to be valid.
METHODS: We conducted simulations under a theoretical bimodal distribution of head circumference. For different definitions of microcephaly, we calculated the sensitivity and specificity using varying cut-offs of head circumference. We then calculated and plotted the positive predictive value for each of these definitions by prevalence of microcephaly.
RESULTS: Simple simulations suggest that if the true prevalence of microcephaly is approximately what is reported in peer-reviewed literature, then relying on cut-off-based definitions may lead to very poor positive predictive value under realistic conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: While a simple head circumference criterion may be used in practice as a screening or surveillance tool, the definition lacks clarification as to what constitutes true pathological microcephaly and may lead to confusion about the true prevalence of microcephaly in Zika-endemic areas, as well as bias in aetiologic studies.
OBJECTIVE: We explored possible reasons for this conflict, hypothesising that the definition of microcephaly used in some studies may be incompletely described, lacking the additional clinical criteria that clinicians use to make a formal diagnosis. We also explored the potential for misclassification that can result from differences in these definitions, especially when applying a percentile cut-off definition in the presence of the much lower observed prevalence estimates that we believe to be valid.
METHODS: We conducted simulations under a theoretical bimodal distribution of head circumference. For different definitions of microcephaly, we calculated the sensitivity and specificity using varying cut-offs of head circumference. We then calculated and plotted the positive predictive value for each of these definitions by prevalence of microcephaly.
RESULTS: Simple simulations suggest that if the true prevalence of microcephaly is approximately what is reported in peer-reviewed literature, then relying on cut-off-based definitions may lead to very poor positive predictive value under realistic conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: While a simple head circumference criterion may be used in practice as a screening or surveillance tool, the definition lacks clarification as to what constitutes true pathological microcephaly and may lead to confusion about the true prevalence of microcephaly in Zika-endemic areas, as well as bias in aetiologic studies.