ArticlePloS one2017
A simulation study to evaluate the performance of five statistical monitoring methods when applied to different time-series components in the context of control programs for endemic diseases.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of State-Level Surveillance during Emerging Outbreaks of Respiratory Viruses: A Model-Based Assessment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Article
- Close to a Decade of Decrease in Antimicrobial Usage in Danish Pig Production-Evaluating the Effect of the Yellow Card Scheme.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
- Comparison of time-series models for monitoring temporal trends in endemic diseases sero-prevalence: lessons from porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome in Danish swine herds.BMC veterinary research · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Disease monitoring and surveillance play a crucial role in control and eradication programs, as it is important to track implemented strategies in order to reduce and/or eliminate a specific disease. The objectives of this study were to assess the performance of different statistical monitoring methods for endemic disease control program scenarios, and to explore what impact of variation (noise) in the data had on the performance of these monitoring methods. We simulated 16 different scenarios of changes in weekly sero-prevalence. The changes included different combinations of increases, decreases and constant sero-prevalence levels (referred as events). Two space-state models were used to model the time series, and different statistical monitoring methods (such as univariate process control algorithms-Shewart Control Chart, Tabular Cumulative Sums, and the V-mask- and monitoring of the trend component-based on 99% confidence intervals and the trend sign) were tested. Performance was evaluated based on the number of iterations in which an alarm was raised for a given week after the changes were introduced. Results revealed that the Shewhart Control Chart was better at detecting increases over decreases in sero-prevalence, whereas the opposite was observed for the Tabular Cumulative Sums. The trend-based methods detected the first event well, but performance was poorer when adapting to several consecutive events. The V-Mask method seemed to perform most consistently, and the impact of noise in the baseline was greater for the Shewhart Control Chart and Tabular Cumulative Sums than for the V-Mask and trend-based methods. The performance of the different statistical monitoring methods varied when monitoring increases and decreases in disease sero-prevalence. Combining two of more methods might improve the potential scope of surveillance systems, allowing them to fulfill different objectives due to their complementary advantages.
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.