ArticlePloS one2015
Leading Indicators and the Evaluation of the Performance of Alerts for Influenza Epidemics.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporal association between influenza A and B positivity and fever-clinic visit burden in Shanghai, China, 2022-2025: a retrospective time-series study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- National Influenza Annual Report 2023-2024: A focus on influenza B and public health implications.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2024Article
- Does the Australian influenza season predict the Canadian influenza season? A qualitative comparison of seasons, 2014-2020.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2023Article
- Influenza surveillance systems using traditional and alternative sources of data: A scoping review.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2022Article
- National influenza mid-season report, 2020-2021.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2021Article
- National Influenza Mid-Season Report, 2019-2020.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2020Article
- Establishment and evaluation of a theater influenza monitoring platform.Military Medical Research · 2017Article
- Improving regional influenza surveillance through a combination of automated outbreak detection methods: the 2015/16 season in France.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost evaluations of epidemic thresholds for influenza have been limited to internal criteria of the indicator variable. We aimed to initiate discussion on appropriate methods for evaluation and the value of cross-validation in assessing the performance of a candidate indicator for influenza activity.
methodsHospital records of in-patients with a diagnosis of confirmed influenza were extracted from the Canadian Discharge Abstract Database from 2003 to 2011 and aggregated to weekly and regional levels, yielding 7 seasons and 4 regions for evaluation (excluding the 2009 pandemic period). An alert created from the weekly time-series of influenza positive laboratory tests (FluWatch, Public Health Agency of Canada) was evaluated against influenza-confirmed hospitalizations on 5 criteria: lead/lag timing; proportion of influenza hospitalizations covered by the alert period; average length of the influenza alert period; continuity of the alert period and length of the pre-peak alert period.
resultsInfluenza hospitalizations led laboratory positive tests an average of only 1.6 (95% CI: -1.5, 4.7) days. However, the difference in timing exceeded 1 week and was statistically significant at the significance level of 0.01 in 5 out of 28 regional seasons. An alert based primarily on 5% positivity and 15 positive tests produced an average alert period of 16.6 weeks. After allowing for a reporting delay of 2 weeks, the alert period included 80% of all influenza-confirmed hospitalizations. For 20 out of the 28 (71%) seasons, the first alert would have been signalled at least 3 weeks (in real time) prior to the week with maximum number of influenza hospitalizations.
conclusionsVirological data collected from laboratories was a good indicator of influenza activity with the resulting alert covering most influenza hospitalizations and providing a reasonable pre-peak warning at the regional level. Though differences in timing were statistically significant, neither time-series consistently led the other.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.