To test brand new robustness of your design and it is possible to inconsistencies inside investigation, we recalibrated brand new model and you can determined the new relevant change in the new chance speed of syphilis, the newest fitting parameters, together with jesus regarding fit (amount of squared weighted residuals) (Desk D for the S1 Text message).
Rather way of just take the fresh new difference in the studies, we suitable a model providing there’s absolutely no difference in indication speed out-of syphilis certainly MSM
When assuming reported non-steady condomless anal intercourse (nsCAI) as the transmission risk instead of nsP, we estimated that MSM with nsCAI had 1.71 [IQR (1.65, 1.81)] times the incidence of MSM without nsCAI. However, the goodness of fit for this model was considerably worse than for the main model (378.8 vs. 148.3). Secondly, we assessed the impact of the assumption of different transmission rates of syphilis among MSMwHD and MSMw/oHD. In the main model we had to assume different transmission rates, because of an apparent discrepancy in the data: despite similar frequency of reported nsP among MSMwHD and MSMw/oHD, we observed much higher incidence of syphilis among MSMwHD than MSMw/oHD even when taking serosorting into account (Table B in S1 Text). To resolve this contradiction, in the main model, we assumed different transmission rates of syphilis (beta) in MSMwHD and MSMw/oHD in our model (Table A in S1 Text). In the absence of this assumption, the model was unable to reproduce the syphilis epidemic in Switzerland and led to either a large overestimation of syphilis incidence in MSMw/oHD or a large underestimation in MSMwHD (Fig N in S1 Text).