Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24714027›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Influenza forecasting in human populations: a scoping review.

Jean-Paul Chretien, Dylan George, Jeffrey Shaman, Rohit A Chitale, F Ellis McKenzie

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 98 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
98citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

98 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Coordinating collaborative infectious disease modeling projects with the hubverse.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The role of models in the covid-19 pandemic.Israel journal of health policy research · 2022
    Article

38 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Jean-Paul ChretienDivision of Integrated Biosurveillance, Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America.
Dylan GeorgeDivision of Analytic Decision Support, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Jeffrey ShamanDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America.
Rohit A ChitaleDivision of Integrated Biosurveillance, Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America.
F Ellis McKenzieFogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.

Funding

True Metal fac coreP30ES009089 · NIEHS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI MATTHEW S PERZANOWSKI · 1998 to 2026
$44.7M
Understanding and controlling antibiotic resistanceU54GM088558 · NIGMS · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI LIPSITCH, MARC · 2009 to 2018
$26.4M
Influenza Outbreak Prediction: Applying Data Assimilation Methodology to Make...R01GM100467 · NIGMS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI SHAMAN, JEFFREY L · 2011 to 2015
$1.4M
NIEHS NIH HHS ES009089NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES009089NIGMS NIH HHS 1U54GM088558NIGMS NIH HHS GM100467NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM100467NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM088558
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Forecasts of influenza activity in human populations could help guide key preparedness tasks. We conducted a scoping review to characterize these methodological approaches and identify research gaps. Adapting the PRISMA methodology for systematic reviews, we searched PubMed, CINAHL, Project Euclid, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for publications in English since January 1, 2000 using the terms "influenza AND (forecast* OR predict*)", excluding studies that did not validate forecasts against independent data or incorporate influenza-related surveillance data from the season or pandemic for which the forecasts were applied. We included 35 publications describing population-based (N = 27), medical facility-based (N = 4), and regional or global pandemic spread (N = 4) forecasts. They included areas of North America (N = 15), Europe (N = 14), and/or Asia-Pacific region (N = 4), or had global scope (N = 3). Forecasting models were statistical (N = 18) or epidemiological (N = 17). Five studies used data assimilation methods to update forecasts with new surveillance data. Models used virological (N = 14), syndromic (N = 13), meteorological (N = 6), internet search query (N = 4), and/or other surveillance data as inputs. Forecasting outcomes and validation metrics varied widely. Two studies compared distinct modeling approaches using common data, 2 assessed model calibration, and 1 systematically incorporated expert input. Of the 17 studies using epidemiological models, 8 included sensitivity analysis. This review suggests need for use of good practices in influenza forecasting (e.g., sensitivity analysis); direct comparisons of diverse approaches; assessment of model calibration; integration of subjective expert input; operational research in pilot, real-world applications; and improved mutual understanding among modelers and public health officials.

Indexed as

Global HealthModels, StatisticalDisease OutbreaksForecastingHumansInfluenza, Human

Identifiers

PMID24714027
PMCPMC3979760

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.