Serviceeinschränkungen vom 12.-22.02.2026 - weitere Infos auf der UB-Homepage

Treffer: Quantification of transmission in one-to-one experiments.

Title:
Quantification of transmission in one-to-one experiments.
Authors:
Velthuis AG; Quantitative Veterinary Epidemiology, Institute for Animal Science and Health, Edelhertweg, Lelystad, The Netherlands., de Jong MC, de Bree J, Nodelijk G, van Boven M
Source:
Epidemiology and infection [Epidemiol Infect] 2002 Apr; Vol. 128 (2), pp. 193-204.
Publication Type:
Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Language:
English
Journal Info:
Publisher: Cambridge University Press Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 8703737 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Print ISSN: 0950-2688 (Print) Linking ISSN: 09502688 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Epidemiol Infect Subsets: MEDLINE
Imprint Name(s):
Original Publication: Cambridge Eng : Cambridge University Press
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20020511 Date Completed: 20020521 Latest Revision: 20190605
Update Code:
20250114
PubMed Central ID:
PMC2869812
DOI:
10.1017/s0950268801006707
PMID:
12002537
Database:
MEDLINE

Weitere Informationen

We study the statistical inference from data on transmission obtained from one-to-one experiments, and compare two algorithms by which the reproduction ratio can be quantified. The first algorithm, the transient state (TS) algorithm, takes the time course of the epidemic into account. The second algorithm, the final size (FS) algorithm, does not take time into account but is based on the assumption that the epidemic process has ended before the experiment is stopped. The FS algorithm is a limiting case of the TS algorithm for the situation where time tends to infinity. So far quantification of transmission has relied almost exclusively on the FS algorithm, even if the TS algorithm would have been more appropriate. Its practical use, however, is limited to experiments with only a few animals. Here, we quantify the error made when the FS algorithm is applied to data of one-to-one experiments not having reached the final size. We conclude that given the chosen tests, the FS algorithm underestimates the reproduction ratio R0, is liberal when testing H0: R0 > or = 1 against H1: R0 < 1, is conservative when testing H0: R0 < or = 1 against H1: R0 > 1 and calculates the same probability as the TS algorithm when testing H0: R(0-control) = R(0-treatment) against H1: R(0-control) > R(0-treatment) We show how the power of the test depends on the duration of the experiments and on the number of replicates. The methods are illustrated by an application to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV).