ArticleOnline journal of public health informatics2016
Development and Validation of a Standardized Tool for Prioritization of Information Sources.
Article in Online journal of public health informatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Infectious disease outbreaks among forcibly displaced persons: an analysis of ProMED reports 1996-2016.Conflict and health · 2020Article
- KIWI: A technology for public health event monitoring and early warning signal detection.Online journal of public health informatics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo validate the utility and effectiveness of a standardized tool for prioritization of information sources for early detection of diseases.
methodsThe tool was developed with input from diverse public health experts garnered through survey. Ten raters used the tool to evaluate ten information sources and reliability among raters was computed. The Proc mixed procedure with random effect statement and SAS Macros were used to compute multiple raters' Fleiss Kappa agreement and Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance.
resultsTen disparate information sources evaluated obtained the following composite scores: ProMed 91%; WAHID 90%; Eurosurv 87%; MediSys 85%; SciDaily 84%; EurekAl 83%; CSHB 78%; GermTrax 75%; Google 74%; and CBC 70%. A Fleiss Kappa agreement of 50.7% was obtained for ten information sources and 72.5% for a sub-set of five sources rated, which is substantial agreement validating the utility and effectiveness of the tool.
conclusionThis study validated the utility and effectiveness of a standardized criteria tool developed to prioritize information sources. The new tool was used to identify five information sources suited for use by the KIWI system in the CEZD-IIR project to improve surveillance of infectious diseases. The tool can be generalized to situations when prioritization of numerous information sources is necessary.
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.