Public health triangulation: approach and application to synthesizing data to understand national and local HIV epidemics

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Public health triangulation is a process for reviewing, synthesising and interpreting secondary data from multiple sources that bear on the same question to make public health decisions. It can be used to understand the dynamics of HIV transmission and to measure the impact of public health programs. While traditional intervention research and metaanalysis would be ideal sources of information for public health decision making, they are infrequently available, and often decisions can be based only on surveillance and survey data.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The process involves examination of a wide variety of data sources and both biological, behavioral and program data and seeks input from stakeholders to formulate meaningful public health questions. Finally and most importantly, it uses the results to inform public health decision-making. There are 12 discrete steps in the triangulation process, which included identification and assessment of key questions, identification of data sources, refining questions, gathering data and reports, assessing the quality of those data and reports, formulating hypotheses to explain trends in the data, corroborating or refining working hypotheses, drawing conclusions, communicating results and recommendations and taking public health action.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Triangulation can be limited by the quality of the original data, the potentials for ecological fallacy and "data dredging" and reproducibility of results.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Nonetheless, we believe that public health triangulation allows for the interpretation of data sets that cannot be analyzed using meta-analysis and can be a helpful adjunct to surveillance, to formal public health intervention research and to monitoring and evaluation, which in turn lead to improved national strategic planning and resource allocation.</p

Measles immunity among pregnant women aged 15–44 years in Namibia, 2008 and 2010

Background: Namibia experienced a large measles outbreak starting in 2009, with 38% of reported cases in adults, including women of reproductive age. Population immunity was assessed among pregnant women to determine whether immunization activities were needed in adults to achieve measles elimination in Namibia. Methods: A total of 1708 and 2040 specimens sampled from Namibian pregnant women aged 15–44 years who were included in the 2008 and 2010 National HIV Sentinel Survey, respectively, were tested for measles immunoglobulin G antibody. The proportion of women seropositive overall and by 5-year age strata was determined, and factors associated with seropositivity were analyzed by logistic regression, including age, facility type, gravidity, HIV status, and urban/rural setting. Seropositivity in 2008 versus 2010 was compared. Results: In both analysis years, measles seropositivity was lower in 15–19-year-olds (77%) and 20–24-year-olds (85–87%) and higher in 25–44-year-olds (90–94%) (2008, p < 0.001; 2010, p < 0.001). Overall measles seropositivity did not differ between 2008 (87%) and 2010 (87%) (p = 0.7). HIV status did not affect seropositivity. Conclusions: Late in a large measles outbreak, 13% of pregnant women in Namibia, and almost one in four 15–19-year-old pregnant women, remained susceptible to measles. In Namibia, immunization campaigns with measles-containing vaccine should be considered for adults

Rubella immunity among pregnant women aged 15–44 years, Namibia, 2010

Background: The level of rubella susceptibility among women of reproductive age in Namibia is unknown. Documenting the risk of rubella will help estimate the potential burden of disease in Namibian women and the risk of congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) in infants, and will guide strategies for the introduction of rubella vaccine. Methods: A total of 2044 serum samples from pregnant Namibian women aged 15–44 years were tested for rubella immunoglobulin G antibody; the samples were obtained during the 2010 National HIV Sentinel Survey. The proportion of women seropositive for rubella was determined by 5-year age strata, and factors associated with seropositivity were analyzed by logistic regression, including age, gravidity, HIV status, facility type, and urban/rural status. Results: Overall rubella seroprevalence was 85% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83–86%). Seroprevalence varied by age group (83–90%) and health district (71–100%). In the multivariable model, women from urban residences had higher odds of seropositivity as compared to women from rural residences (odds ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.09–1.81). Conclusions: In the absence of a routine rubella immunization program, the high level of rubella seropositivity suggests rubella virus transmission in Namibia, yet 15% of pregnant Namibian women remain susceptible to rubella. The introduction of rubella vaccine will help reduce the risk of rubella in pregnant women and CRS in infants

Variability of the Positive Predictive Value of PI-RADS for Prostate MRI across 26 Centers: Experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel

Background Prostate MRI is used widely in clinical care for guiding tissue sampling, active surveillance, and staging. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) helps provide a standardized probabilistic approach for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer. Despite widespread use, the variability in performance of prostate MRI across practices remains unknown. Purpose To estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of PI-RADS for the detection of high-grade prostate cancer across imaging centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study was compliant with the HIPAA. Twenty-six centers with members in the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel submitted data from men with suspected or biopsy-proven untreated prostate cancer. MRI scans were obtained between January 2015 and April 2018. This was followed with targeted biopsy. Only men with at least one MRI lesion assigned a PI-RADS score of 2-5 were included. Outcome was prostate cancer with Gleason score (GS) greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2). A mixed-model logistic regression with institution and individuals as random effects was used to estimate overall PPVs. The variability of observed PPV of PI-RADS across imaging centers was described by using the median and interquartile range. Results The authors evaluated 3449 men (mean age, 65 years ± 8 [standard deviation]) with 5082 lesions. Biopsy results showed 1698 cancers with GS greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) in 2082 men. Across all centers, the estimated PPV was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%, 43%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 and 49% (95% CI: 40%, 58%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 4. The interquartile ranges of PPV at these same PI-RADS score thresholds were 27%-44% and 27%-48%, respectively. Conclusion The positive predictive value of the Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System was low and varied widely across centers. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Milot in this issue