HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by KATHOLI, C. R. Articles by UNNASCH, T. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by KATHOLI, C. R. Articles by UNNASCH, T. R. Related Collections Modeling Medical Entomology

IMPORTANT EXPERIMENTAL PARAMETERS FOR DETERMINING INFECTION RATES IN ARTHROPOD VECTORS USING POOL SCREENING APPROACHES

Measuring transmission of a vector-borne infection is essential to understanding infection dynamics. When infection prevalence in the vector population is low, transmission is often measured by pool screening (also referred to as group testing). Several investigators have developed statistical methods to recover infection prevalence estimates from pool screen data. These are based on models that contain certain assumptions, and a pool screening approach must be designed to take these into account if accurate estimates of infection prevalence are to be obtained. Here we describe these assumptions and discuss appropriate sampling protocols. The sources of error inherent in pool screening are described, and we show that, under most conditions in which one would want to use group testing, most of the error results from sampling and not the pooling process. Issues involved in developing a sampling protocol, including the total number of insects to be screened and optimal pool size, are explored. The meaning of confidence intervals associated with prevalence estimates and the appropriate interpretation of these intervals are discussed.

Received August 19, 2005. Accepted for publication January 13, 2006.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Drs. Naomi Lang-Unnasch and Eddie W. Cupp for critically reading the manuscript. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers of an earlier version of this manuscript for constructive comments. In particular, we thank the reviewer who pointed out a major conceptual error that we have corrected. We also acknowledge the role of the Onchocerciasis Control Program in the Americas and the former Onchocerciasis Control Programme in West Africa in supporting our work.

^* Address correspondence to Thomas R. Unnasch, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Division of Geographic Medicine, BBRB 203, 1530 3rd Avenue South, Birmingham, AL 35294-2170. E-mail: trunnasch{at}geomed.dom.uab.edu

Authors’ addresses: Charles R. Katholi, PhD, University of Alabama in Birmingham, Department of Biostatistics, Ryals 317, 1665 University Blvd., Birmingham, AL 35294-0022, E-mail: ckatholi{at}uab.edu. Thomas R. Unnasch, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Division of Geographic Medicine, BBRB 203, 1530 3rd Avenue South, Birmingham, AL 35294-2170, E-mail: trunnasch{at}geomed.dom.uab.edu.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. FISCHER, S. M. ERICKSON, K. FISCHER, J. F. FUCHS, R. U. RAO, B. M. CHRISTENSEN, and G. J. WEIL PERSISTENCE OF BRUGIA MALAYI DNA IN VECTOR AND NON-VECTOR MOSQUITOES: IMPLICATIONS FOR XENOMONITORING AND TRANSMISSION MONITORING OF LYMPHATIC FILARIASIS Am J Trop Med Hyg, March 1, 2007; 76(3): 502 - 507. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]