Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27765731›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2016

Evaluating Google, Twitter, and Wikipedia as Tools for Influenza Surveillance Using Bayesian Change Point Analysis: A Comparative Analysis.

J Danielle Sharpe, Richard S Hopkins, Robert L Cook, Catherine W Striley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Early Warning of Infectious Disease Outbreaks Using Social Media and Digital Data: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Real-Time Detection of Flu Season Onset: A Novel Approach to Flu Surveillance.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Correlation between flu and Wikipedia's pages visualization.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Infodemiology and Infoveillance: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

J Danielle SharpeCollege of Public Health and Health Professions, Department of Epidemiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States. danielle.sharpe@emory.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1898-6202

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraditional influenza surveillance relies on influenza-like illness (ILI) syndrome that is reported by health care providers. It primarily captures individuals who seek medical care and misses those who do not. Recently, Web-based data sources have been studied for application to public health surveillance, as there is a growing number of people who search, post, and tweet about their illnesses before seeking medical care. Existing research has shown some promise of using data from Google, Twitter, and Wikipedia to complement traditional surveillance for ILI. However, past studies have evaluated these Web-based sources individually or dually without comparing all 3 of them, and it would be beneficial to know which of the Web-based sources performs best in order to be considered to complement traditional methods.

objectiveThe objective of this study is to comparatively analyze Google, Twitter, and Wikipedia by examining which best corresponds with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ILI data. It was hypothesized that Wikipedia will best correspond with CDC ILI data as previous research found it to be least influenced by high media coverage in comparison with Google and Twitter.

methodsPublicly available, deidentified data were collected from the CDC, Google Flu Trends, HealthTweets, and Wikipedia for the 2012-2015 influenza seasons. Bayesian change point analysis was used to detect seasonal changes, or change points, in each of the data sources. Change points in Google, Twitter, and Wikipedia that occurred during the exact week, 1 preceding week, or 1 week after the CDC's change points were compared with the CDC data as the gold standard. All analyses were conducted using the R package "bcp" version 4.0.0 in RStudio version 0.99.484 (RStudio Inc). In addition, sensitivity and positive predictive values (PPV) were calculated for Google, Twitter, and Wikipedia.

resultsDuring the 2012-2015 influenza seasons, a high sensitivity of 92% was found for Google, whereas the PPV for Google was 85%. A low sensitivity of 50% was calculated for Twitter; a low PPV of 43% was found for Twitter also. Wikipedia had the lowest sensitivity of 33% and lowest PPV of 40%.

conclusionsOf the 3 Web-based sources, Google had the best combination of sensitivity and PPV in detecting Bayesian change points in influenza-related data streams. Findings demonstrated that change points in Google, Twitter, and Wikipedia data occasionally aligned well with change points captured in CDC ILI data, yet these sources did not detect all changes in CDC data and should be further studied and developed.

Indexed as

Bayes theoreminfluenza, humanInternetpublic health surveillancesocial media

Identifiers

PMID27765731
PMCPMC5095368

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.