Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27678084›Full record

ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2017

Evaluating Google Flu Trends in Latin America: Important Lessons for the Next Phase of Digital Disease Detection.

Simon Pollett, W John Boscardin, Eduardo Azziz-Baumgartner, Yeny O Tinoco, Giselle Soto, Candice Romero, Jen Kok, Matthew Biggerstaff, Cecile Viboud, George W Rutherford

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Reappraising the utility of Google Flu Trends.PLoS computational biology · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Simon PollettDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California at San Francisco.
W John BoscardinDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California at San Francisco.
Eduardo Azziz-BaumgartnerInfluenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Yeny O TinocoDepartment of Virology & Emerging Infectious Diseases, US Naval Medical Research Unit No 6, Callao, Peru.
Giselle SotoDepartment of Virology & Emerging Infectious Diseases, US Naval Medical Research Unit No 6, Callao, Peru.
Candice RomeroDepartment of Virology & Emerging Infectious Diseases, US Naval Medical Research Unit No 6, Callao, Peru.
Jen KokCentre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Laboratory Services, Level 3 Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research, Pathology West, Westmead Hospital, New South Wales, Australia.
Matthew BiggerstaffInfluenza Division, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Cecile ViboudFogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
George W RutherfordDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California at San Francisco.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLatin America has a substantial burden of influenza and rising Internet access and could benefit from real-time influenza epidemic prediction web tools such as Google Flu Trends (GFT) to assist in risk communication and resource allocation during epidemics. However, there has never been a published assessment of GFT's accuracy in most Latin American countries or in any low- to middle-income country. Our aim was to evaluate GFT in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay.

methodsWeekly influenza-test positive proportions for the eight countries were obtained from FluNet for the period January 2011-December 2014. Concurrent weekly Google-predicted influenza activity in the same countries was abstracted from GFT. Pearson correlation coefficients between observed and Google-predicted influenza activity trends were determined for each country. Permutation tests were used to examine background seasonal correlation between FluNet and GFT by country.

resultsThere were frequent GFT prediction errors, with correlation ranging from r = -0.53 to 0.91. GFT-predicted influenza activity best correlated with FluNet data in Mexico follow by Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay. Correlation was generally highest in the more temperate countries with more regular influenza seasonality and lowest in tropical regions. A substantial amount of autocorrelation was noted, suggestive that GFT is not fully specific for influenza virus activity.

conclusionsWe note substantial inaccuracies with GFT-predicted influenza activity compared with FluNet throughout Latin America, particularly among tropical countries with irregular influenza seasonality. Our findings offer valuable lessons for future Internet-based biosurveillance tools.

Indexed as

Population SurveillanceSearch EngineDisease OutbreaksGeography, MedicalHistory, 21st CenturyHumansInfluenza, HumanLatin AmericaSeasonsdigital epidemiologyGoogle Flu TrendsLatin America

Identifiers

PMID27678084
PMCPMC6394128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.