The Design and Analysis of Partner Studies of HIV Transmission

Common goals in epidemiologic studies of infectious diseases include identification of the infectious agent, description of the modes of transmission and characterization of factors that influence the probability of transmission from infected to uninfected individuals. In the case of AIDS, the agent has been identified as the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and transmission is known to occur through a variety of contact mechanisms including unprotected sexual intercourse, transfusion of infected blood products and sharing of needles in intravenous drug use. Relatively little is known about the probability of IV transmission associated with the various modes of contact, or the role that other cofactors play in promoting or suppressing transmission. Here, transmission probability refers to the probability that the virus is transmitted to a susceptible individual following exposure consisting of a series of potentially infectious contacts. The infectivity of HIV for a given route of transmission is defined to be the per contact probability of infection. Knowledge of infectivity and its relationship to other factors is important in understanding the dynamics of the AIDS epidemic and in suggesting appropriate measures to control its spread. The primary source of empirical data about infectivity comes from sexual partners of infected individuals. Partner studies consist of a series of such partnerships, usually heterosexual and monogamous, each composed of an initially infected "index case" and a partner who may or may not be infected by the time of data collection. However, because the infection times of both partners may be unknown and the history of contacts uncertain, any quantitative characterization of infectivity is extremely difficult. Thus, most statistical analyses of partner study data involve the simplifying assumption that infectivity is a constant common to all partnerships. The major objectives of this work are to describe and discuss the design and analysis of partner studies, providing a general statistical framework for investigations of infectivity and risk factors for HIV transmission. The development is largely based on three papers: Jewell and Shiboski (1990), Kim and Lagakos (1990), and Shiboski and Jewell (1992).

ASSESSING THE UNRELIABILITY OF THE MEDICAL LITERATURE: A RESPONSE TO "WHY MOST PUBLISHED RESEARCH FINDINGS ARE FALSE"

A recent article in this journal (Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2: e124) argued that more than half of published research findings in the medical literature are false. In this commentary, we examine the structure of that argument, and show that it has three basic components: 1)An assumption that the prior probability of most hypotheses explored in medical research is below 50%. 2)Dichotomization of P-values at the 0.05 level and introduction of a “bias” factor (produced by significance-seeking), the combination of which severely weakens the evidence provided by every design. 3)Use of Bayes theorem to show that, in the face of weak evidence, hypotheses with low prior probabilities cannot have posterior probabilities over 50%. Thus, the claim is based on a priori assumptions that most tested hypotheses are likely to be false, and then the inferential model used makes it impossible for evidence from any study to overcome this handicap. We focus largely on step (2), explaining how the combination of dichotomization and “bias” dilutes experimental evidence, and showing how this dilution leads inevitably to the stated conclusion. We also demonstrate a fallacy in another important component of the argument –that papers in “hot” fields are more likely to produce false findings. We agree with the paper’s conclusions and recommendations that many medical research findings are less definitive than readers suspect, that P-values are widely misinterpreted, that bias of various forms is widespread, that multiple approaches are needed to prevent the literature from being systematically biased and the need for more data on the prevalence of false claims. But calculating the unreliability of the medical research literature, in whole or in part, requires more empirical evidence and different inferential models than were used. The claim that “most research findings are false for most research designs and for most fields” must be considered as yet unproven.