Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28441422›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2017

Automated detection of hospital outbreaks: A systematic review of methods.

Brice Leclère, David L Buckeridge, Pierre-Yves Boëlle, Pascal Astagneau, Didier Lepelletier

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Monitoring Multidrug-ResistantPolish journal of microbiology · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors.

Brice LeclèreDepartment of Medical Evaluation and Epidemiology, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2206-6751
David L BuckeridgeDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Pierre-Yves BoëlleUMR S 1136, Pierre Louis Institute of Epidemiology and Public Health, Pierre and Marie Curie University, Paris, France.
Pascal AstagneauDepartment of Public Health, Pierre and Marie Curie University, Paris, France.
Didier LepelletierMiHAR laboratory, Nantes University, Nantes, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSeveral automated algorithms for epidemiological surveillance in hospitals have been proposed. However, the usefulness of these methods to detect nosocomial outbreaks remains unclear. The goal of this review was to describe outbreak detection algorithms that have been tested within hospitals, consider how they were evaluated, and synthesize their results.

methodsWe developed a search query using keywords associated with hospital outbreak detection and searched the MEDLINE database. To ensure the highest sensitivity, no limitations were initially imposed on publication languages and dates, although we subsequently excluded studies published before 2000. Every study that described a method to detect outbreaks within hospitals was included, without any exclusion based on study design. Additional studies were identified through citations in retrieved studies.

resultsTwenty-nine studies were included. The detection algorithms were grouped into 5 categories: simple thresholds (n = 6), statistical process control (n = 12), scan statistics (n = 6), traditional statistical models (n = 6), and data mining methods (n = 4). The evaluation of the algorithms was often solely descriptive (n = 15), but more complex epidemiological criteria were also investigated (n = 10). The performance measures varied widely between studies: e.g., the sensitivity of an algorithm in a real world setting could vary between 17 and 100%.

conclusionEven if outbreak detection algorithms are useful complementary tools for traditional surveillance, the heterogeneity in results among published studies does not support quantitative synthesis of their performance. A standardized framework should be followed when evaluating outbreak detection methods to allow comparison of algorithms across studies and synthesis of results.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksHospitalsAlgorithmsCross InfectionHumansPopulation Surveillance

Identifiers

PMID28441422
PMCPMC5404859

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.