SynthesisPloS one2017
Automated detection of hospital outbreaks: A systematic review of methods.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hospital-wide pathogen transmission surveillance combining epidemiological, genetic, and spectroscopic approaches.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Individual and population level uncertainty interact to determine the performance of outbreak surveillance systems.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- How to utilize routine antimicrobial resistance surveillance data for local and national actions in an LMIC.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2025Review
- How mathematical modelling can inform outbreak response vaccination.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Review
- Comparing automated surveillance systems for detection of pathogen-related clusters in healthcare settings.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2024Article
- Extending outbreak investigation with machine learning and graph theory: Benefits of new tools with application to a nosocomial outbreak of a multidrug-resistant organism.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2023Article
- Monitoring Multidrug-ResistantPolish journal of microbiology · 2022Article
- Article
- Implementation of an automated cluster alert system into the routine work of infection control and hospital epidemiology: experiences from a tertiary care university hospital.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Transformation of microbiology data into a standardised data representation using OpenEHR.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Automated Cluster Detection of Health Care-Associated Infection Based on the Multisource Surveillance of Process Data in the Area Network: Retrospective Study of Algorithm Development and Validation.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Article
- Article
- Fast and near-optimal monitoring for healthcare acquired infection outbreaks.PLoS computational biology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.