Search for: All records

Abstract Contact tracing forms a crucial part of the public-health toolbox in mitigating and understanding emergent pathogens and nascent disease outbreaks. Contact tracing in the United States was conducted during the pre-Omicron phase of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This tracing relied on voluntary reporting and responses, often using rapid antigen tests due to lack of accessibility to PCR tests. These limitations, combined with SARS-CoV-2’s propensity for asymptomatic transmission, raise the question “how reliable was contact tracing for COVID-19 in the United States”? We answered this question using a Markov model to examine the efficiency with which transmission could be detected based on the design and response rates of contact tracing studies in the United States. Our results suggest that contact tracing protocols in the U.S. are unlikely to have identified more than 1.65% (95% uncertainty interval: 1.62-1.68%) of transmission events with PCR testing and 1.00% (95% uncertainty interval 0.98-1.02%) with rapid antigen testing. When considering a more robust contact tracing scenario, based on compliance rates in East Asia with PCR testing, this increases to 62.7% (95% uncertainty interval: 62.6-62.8%). We did not assume presence of asymptomatic transmission or superspreading, making our estimates upper bounds on the actual percentages traced. These findings highlight the limitations in interpretability for studies of SARS-CoV-2 disease spread based on U.S. contact tracing and underscore the vulnerability of the population to future disease outbreaks, for SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens. 

Abstract BackgroundThe target trial framework was developed as a strategy to design and analyze observational epidemiologic studies with the aim of reducing bias due to analytic decisions. It involves designing a hypothetical randomized trial to answer a question of interest and systematically considering how to use observational data to emulate each trial component. AimsThe primary aim of this paper is to provide a detailed example of the application of the target trial framework to a research question in oral epidemiology. Materials and MethodsWe describe the development of a hypothetical target trial and emulation protocol to evaluate the effect of preconception periodontitis treatment on time‐to‐pregnancy. We leverage data from Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO), a preconception cohort, to ground our example in existing observational data. We discuss the decision‐making process for each trial component, as well as limitations encountered. ResultsOur target trial application revealed data limitations that precluded us from carrying out the proposed emulation. Implications for data quality are discussed and we provide recommendations for researchers interested in conducting trial emulations in the field of oral epidemiology. DiscussionThe target trial framework has the potential to improve the validity of observational research in oral health, when properly applied. ConclusionWe encourage the broad adoption of the target trial framework to the field of observational oral health research and demonstrate its value as a tool to identify directions for future research. 

A goal of many research programmes in biology is to extract meaningful insights from large, complex datasets. Researchers in ecology, evolution and behavior (EEB) often grapple with long-term, observational datasets from which they construct models to test causal hypotheses about biological processes. Similarly, epidemiologists analyse large, complex observational datasets to understand the distribution and determinants of human health. A key difference in the analytical workflows for these two distinct areas of biology is the delineation of data analysis tasks and explicit use of causal directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), widely adopted by epidemiologists. Here, we review the most recent causal inference literature and describe an analytical workflow that has direct applications for EEB. We start this commentary by defining four distinct analytical tasks (description, prediction, association, causal inference). The remainder of the text is dedicated to causal inference, specifically focusing on the use of DAGs to inform the modelling strategy. Given the increasing interest in causal inference and misperceptions regarding this task, we seek to facilitate an exchange of ideas between disciplinary silos and provide an analytical framework that is particularly relevant for making causal inference from observational data.