Models for estimating and projecting global, regional and national prevalence and disease burden of asthma: a systematic review

Abstract

Background: Statistical models are increasingly being used to estimate and project the prevalence and burden of asthma. Given substantial variations in these estimates, there is a need to critically assess the properties of these models and assess their transparency and reproducibility. We aimed to critically appraise the strengths, limitations and reproducibility of existing models for estimating and projecting the global, regional and national prevalence and burden of asthma.

Methods: We undertook a systematic review, which involved searching Medline, Embase, World Health Organization Library and Information Services (WHOLIS) and Web of Science from 1980 to 2017 for modelling studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion and then assessed their strengths, limitations and reproducibility using pre-defined quality criteria. Data were descriptively and narratively synthesised.

Results: We identified 108 eligible studies, which employed a total of 51 models: 42 models were used to derive national level estimates, two models for regional estimates, four models for global and regional estimates and three models for global, regional and national estimates. Ten models were used to estimate the prevalence of asthma, 27 models estimated the burden of asthma - including, health care service utilisation, disability-adjusted life years, mortality and direct and indirect costs of asthma - and 14 models estimated both the prevalence and burden of asthma. Logistic and linear regression models were most widely used for national estimates. Different versions of the DisMod-MR- Bayesian meta-regression models and Cause Of Death Ensemble model (CODEm) were predominantly used for global, regional and national estimates. Most models suffered from a number of methodological limitations - in particular, poor reporting, insufficient quality and lack of reproducibility.

Conclusions: Whilst global, regional and national estimates of asthma prevalence and burden continue to inform health policy and investment decisions on asthma, most models used to derive these estimates lack the required reproducibility. There is a need for better-constructed models for estimating and projecting the prevalence and disease burden of asthma and a related need for better reporting of models, and making data and code available to facilitate replication.

Figure 1

Checklist for assessing the quality of models.

Figure 2

PRISMA flow diagram of selected papers.

Figure 3

Distribution of included studies and models. *One model (linear regression model) was used in both national-level and global-and-regional-level studies which we counted as national level model due to its high uses in national level studies; and one model (CODEm) was used in both global-and-regional-level and global-regional-and national-level studies which we counted as global-regional-and national-level model due to its high uses in global-regional-and national-level studies.

Figure 4

Frequencies of uses of each model by type of study. NB. Sum of the frequencies of uses of a model may not be equal to the number of studies used that model, because many studies used more than one model and some studies used same model for estimating both prevalence and more than one component of burden.

Figure 5

Percentage of studies fulfilled each model quality criteria.