Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23472077›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Evaluation of epidemic intelligence systems integrated in the early alerting and reporting project for the detection of A/H5N1 influenza events.

Philippe Barboza, Laetitia Vaillant, Abla Mawudeku, Noele P Nelson, David M Hartley, Lawrence C Madoff, Jens P Linge, Nigel Collier, John S Brownstein, Roman Yangarber and 2 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. A call for an ethical framework when using social media data for artificial intelligence applications in public health research.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2020
    Article
  17. Application of natural language processing algorithms for extracting information from news articles in event-based surveillance.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2020
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Risk assessment strategies for early detection and prediction of infectious disease outbreaks associated with climate change.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Philippe BarbozaInternational Department, French Institute for Public Health Surveillance (Institut de Veille Sanitaire), Saint Maurice, France. p.barboza@invs.sante.fr
Laetitia Vaillant
Abla Mawudeku
Noele P Nelson
David M Hartley
Lawrence C Madoff
Jens P Linge
Nigel Collier
John S Brownstein
Roman Yangarber
Pascal Astagneau
Early Alerting Reporting Project Of The Global Health Security Initiative

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of Web-based expert epidemic intelligence systems is to detect health threats. The Global Health Security Initiative (GHSI) Early Alerting and Reporting (EAR) project was launched to assess the feasibility and opportunity for pooling epidemic intelligence data from seven expert systems. EAR participants completed a qualitative survey to document epidemic intelligence strategies and to assess perceptions regarding the systems performance. Timeliness and sensitivity were rated highly illustrating the value of the systems for epidemic intelligence. Weaknesses identified included representativeness, completeness and flexibility. These findings were corroborated by the quantitative analysis performed on signals potentially related to influenza A/H5N1 events occurring in March 2010. For the six systems for which this information was available, the detection rate ranged from 31% to 38%, and increased to 72% when considering the virtual combined system. The effective positive predictive values ranged from 3% to 24% and F1-scores ranged from 6% to 27%. System sensitivity ranged from 38% to 72%. An average difference of 23% was observed between the sensitivities calculated for human cases and epizootics, underlining the difficulties in developing an efficient algorithm for a single pathology. However, the sensitivity increased to 93% when the virtual combined system was considered, clearly illustrating complementarities between individual systems. The average delay between the detection of A/H5N1 events by the systems and their official reporting by WHO or OIE was 10.2 days (95% CI: 6.7-13.8). This work illustrates the diversity in implemented epidemic intelligence activities, differences in system's designs, and the potential added values and opportunities for synergy between systems, between users and between systems and users.

Indexed as

Computer SystemsDisease OutbreaksInfluenza A Virus, H5N1 SubtypePublic Health SurveillanceDatabases, FactualEpidemicsGlobal HealthHumansInfluenza, HumanPredictive Value of TestsPublic HealthSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID23472077
PMCPMC3589479

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.