The impact of imperfect screening tools on measuring the prevalence of epilepsy and headaches in Burkina Faso.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Burkina Faso
/ epidemiology
Child
Child, Preschool
Cross-Sectional Studies
Epilepsy
/ diagnosis
Female
Headache Disorders
/ diagnosis
Humans
Male
Mass Screening
/ methods
Middle Aged
Neurocysticercosis
/ complications
Prevalence
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Sensitivity and Specificity
Surveys and Questionnaires
/ standards
Young Adult
Journal
PLoS neglected tropical diseases
ISSN: 1935-2735
Titre abrégé: PLoS Negl Trop Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101291488
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2019
01 2019
Historique:
received:
30
03
2018
accepted:
22
12
2018
revised:
30
01
2019
pubmed:
18
1
2019
medline:
12
2
2019
entrez:
18
1
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Epilepsy and progressively worsening severe chronic headaches (WSCH) are the two most common clinical manifestations of neurocysticercosis, a form of cysticercosis. Most community-based studies in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) use a two-step approach (questionnaire and confirmation) to estimate the prevalence of these neurological disorders and neurocysticercosis. Few validate the questionnaire in the field or account for the imperfect nature of the screening questionnaire and the fact that only those who screen positive have the opportunity to be confirmed. This study aims to obtain community-based validity estimates of a screening questionnaire, and to assess the impact of verification bias and misclassification error on prevalence estimates of epilepsy and WSCH. Baseline screening questionnaire followed by neurological examination data from a cluster randomized controlled trial collected between February 2011 and January 2012 were used. Bayesian latent-class models were applied to obtain verification bias adjusted validity estimates for the screening questionnaire. These models were also used to compare the adjusted prevalence estimates of epilepsy and WSCH to those directly obtained from the data (i.e. unadjusted prevalence estimates). Different priors were used and their corresponding posterior inference was compared for both WSCH and epilepsy. Screening data were available for 4768 individuals. For epilepsy, posterior estimates for the sensitivity varied with the priors used but remained robust for the specificity, with the highest estimates at 66.1% (95%BCI: 56.4%;75.3%) for sensitivity and 88.9% (88.0%;89.8%) for specificity. For WSCH, the sensitivity and specificity estimates remained robust, with the highest at 59.6% (49.7%;69.1%) and 88.6% (87.6%;89.6%), respectively. The unadjusted prevalence estimates were consistently lower than the adjusted prevalence estimates for both epilepsy and WSCH. This study demonstrates that in some settings, the prevalence of epilepsy and WSCH can be considerably underestimated when using the two-step approach. We provide an analytic solution to obtain more valid prevalence estimates of these neurological disorders, although more community-based validity studies are needed to reduce the uncertainty of the estimates. Valid estimates of these two neurological disorders are essential to obtain accurate burden values for neglected tropical diseases such as neurocysticercosis that manifest as epilepsy or WSCH. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03095339.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Epilepsy and progressively worsening severe chronic headaches (WSCH) are the two most common clinical manifestations of neurocysticercosis, a form of cysticercosis. Most community-based studies in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) use a two-step approach (questionnaire and confirmation) to estimate the prevalence of these neurological disorders and neurocysticercosis. Few validate the questionnaire in the field or account for the imperfect nature of the screening questionnaire and the fact that only those who screen positive have the opportunity to be confirmed. This study aims to obtain community-based validity estimates of a screening questionnaire, and to assess the impact of verification bias and misclassification error on prevalence estimates of epilepsy and WSCH.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
Baseline screening questionnaire followed by neurological examination data from a cluster randomized controlled trial collected between February 2011 and January 2012 were used. Bayesian latent-class models were applied to obtain verification bias adjusted validity estimates for the screening questionnaire. These models were also used to compare the adjusted prevalence estimates of epilepsy and WSCH to those directly obtained from the data (i.e. unadjusted prevalence estimates). Different priors were used and their corresponding posterior inference was compared for both WSCH and epilepsy. Screening data were available for 4768 individuals. For epilepsy, posterior estimates for the sensitivity varied with the priors used but remained robust for the specificity, with the highest estimates at 66.1% (95%BCI: 56.4%;75.3%) for sensitivity and 88.9% (88.0%;89.8%) for specificity. For WSCH, the sensitivity and specificity estimates remained robust, with the highest at 59.6% (49.7%;69.1%) and 88.6% (87.6%;89.6%), respectively. The unadjusted prevalence estimates were consistently lower than the adjusted prevalence estimates for both epilepsy and WSCH.
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE
This study demonstrates that in some settings, the prevalence of epilepsy and WSCH can be considerably underestimated when using the two-step approach. We provide an analytic solution to obtain more valid prevalence estimates of these neurological disorders, although more community-based validity studies are needed to reduce the uncertainty of the estimates. Valid estimates of these two neurological disorders are essential to obtain accurate burden values for neglected tropical diseases such as neurocysticercosis that manifest as epilepsy or WSCH.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03095339.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30653519
doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007109
pii: PNTD-D-18-00504
pmc: PMC6353216
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03095339']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0007109Subventions
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : F31 NS093983
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R01 NS064901
Pays : United States
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : T32 HD007338
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Int J Epidemiol. 2000 Apr;29(2):330-5
pubmed: 10817133
Bull Soc Pathol Exot. 2000 Nov;93(4):276-8
pubmed: 11204728
Epilepsia. 2002;43 Suppl 6:21-5
pubmed: 12190974
Lancet. 2003 Aug 16;362(9383):547-56
pubmed: 12932389
Lancet Neurol. 2005 Jan;4(1):21-31
pubmed: 15620854
Epilepsia. 2005 Apr;46(4):470-2
pubmed: 15816939
Brain. 1992 Jun;115 ( Pt 3):783-94
pubmed: 1628202
Epilepsia. 2005 Dec;46(12):1963-9
pubmed: 16393163
East Afr Med J. 1992 Apr;69(4):196-9
pubmed: 1644029
Cephalalgia. 2007 Mar;27(3):193-210
pubmed: 17381554
Lancet Neurol. 2008 Apr;7(4):354-61
pubmed: 18339350
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2009;3(3):e406
pubmed: 19333365
Cephalalgia. 2009 Dec;29(12):1317-25
pubmed: 19438921
Epilepsia. 2009 Oct;50(10):2310-3
pubmed: 19583783
Cephalalgia. 2010 May;30(5):582-92
pubmed: 19735479
Epilepsia. 2010 May;51(5):883-90
pubmed: 20067507
Stat Med. 2010 Oct 30;29(24):2532-43
pubmed: 20799249
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010 Nov 02;4(11):e870
pubmed: 21072231
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2011 May;5(5):e1152
pubmed: 21629722
Epilepsia. 2011 Aug;52(8):1382-7
pubmed: 21635234
Headache. 2011 Nov-Dec;51(10):1483-92
pubmed: 22050317
Cephalalgia. 2012 Feb;32(3):250-4
pubmed: 22174352
Acta Neurol Scand. 2012 Oct;126(4):270-8
pubmed: 22289127
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2012;6(2):e1521
pubmed: 22363827
Seizure. 2012 Nov;21(9):691-8
pubmed: 22883631
Epilepsy Res. 1990 Dec;7(3):230-9
pubmed: 2289482
J Headache Pain. 2012 Oct;13(7):543-50
pubmed: 22911168
Epilepsia. 2013 Apr;54(4):757-63
pubmed: 23350750
Lancet Neurol. 2013 Mar;12(3):253-63
pubmed: 23375964
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013 Apr;137(4):558-65
pubmed: 23544945
Neuroepidemiology. 2014;42(1):7-15
pubmed: 24356059
Epilepsy Behav. 2014 Aug;37:258-64
pubmed: 25112557
Lancet Neurol. 2014 Oct;13(10):1029-44
pubmed: 25231525
Lancet Neurol. 2014 Dec;13(12):1202-15
pubmed: 25453460
Cancer Cytopathol. 2015 Mar;123(3):193-201
pubmed: 25521425
J Theor Biol. 2015 Oct 21;383:106-15
pubmed: 26271891
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 Nov 20;9(11):e0004248
pubmed: 26588468
PLoS Med. 2015 Dec 03;12(12):e1001920
pubmed: 26633705
Acta Trop. 2017 Jan;165:161-169
pubmed: 26802489
Lancet. 2016 Oct 8;388(10053):1545-1602
pubmed: 27733282
Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2017 Mar;21(3):17
pubmed: 28271336
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 16;12(3):e0173945
pubmed: 28301557
Epilepsy Behav. 2017 May;70(Pt A):161-165
pubmed: 28427026
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017 Aug 3;11(8):e0005424
pubmed: 28771480
Lancet. 2017 Sep 16;390(10100):1260-1344
pubmed: 28919118
Lancet Neurol. 2017 Nov;16(11):877-897
pubmed: 28931491
PLoS Genet. 2018 May 3;14(5):e1007298
pubmed: 29723195
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1987 Jul;50(7):829-39
pubmed: 3305790
Cephalalgia. 1995 Dec;15(6):482-8
pubmed: 8706111