Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29875090›Full record

ReviewJMIR public health and surveillance2018

Identifying Methods for Monitoring Foodborne Illness: Review of Existing Public Health Surveillance Techniques.

Rachel A Oldroyd, Michelle A Morris, Mark Birkin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Whole-genome sequence of 19Microbiology resource announcements · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Predicting Food Safety Compliance for Informed Food Outlet Inspections: A Machine Learning Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Sampling and Sampling Frames in Big Data Epidemiology.Current epidemiology reports · 2019
    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

3 authors.

Rachel A OldroydLeeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3422-7396
Michelle A MorrisLeeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9325-619X
Mark BirkinLeeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5991-098X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraditional methods of monitoring foodborne illness are associated with problems of untimeliness and underreporting. In recent years, alternative data sources such as social media data have been used to monitor the incidence of disease in the population (infodemiology and infoveillance). These data sources prove timelier than traditional general practitioner data, they can help to fill the gaps in the reporting process, and they often include additional metadata that is useful for supplementary research.

objectiveThe aim of the study was to identify and formally analyze research papers using consumer-generated data, such as social media data or restaurant reviews, to quantify a disease or public health ailment. Studies of this nature are scarce within the food safety domain, therefore identification and understanding of transferrable methods in other health-related fields are of particular interest.

methodsStructured scoping methods were used to identify and analyze primary research papers using consumer-generated data for disease or public health surveillance. The title, abstract, and keyword fields of 5 databases were searched using predetermined search terms. A total of 5239 papers matched the search criteria, of which 145 were taken to full-text review-62 papers were deemed relevant and were subjected to data characterization and thematic analysis.

resultsThe majority of studies (40/62, 65%) focused on the surveillance of influenza-like illness. Only 10 studies (16%) used consumer-generated data to monitor outbreaks of foodborne illness. Twitter data (58/62, 94%) and Yelp reviews (3/62, 5%) were the most commonly used data sources. Studies reporting high correlations against baseline statistics used advanced statistical and computational approaches to calculate the incidence of disease. These include classification and regression approaches, clustering approaches, and lexicon-based approaches. Although they are computationally intensive due to the requirement of training data, studies using classification approaches reported the best performance.

conclusionsBy analyzing studies in digital epidemiology, computer science, and public health, this paper has identified and analyzed methods of disease monitoring that can be transferred to foodborne disease surveillance. These methods fall into 4 main categories: basic approach, classification and regression, clustering approaches, and lexicon-based approaches. Although studies using a basic approach to calculate disease incidence generally report good performance against baseline measures, they are sensitive to chatter generated by media reports. More computationally advanced approaches are required to filter spurious messages and protect predictive systems against false alarms. Research using consumer-generated data for monitoring influenza-like illness is expansive; however, research regarding the use of restaurant reviews and social media data in the context of food safety is limited. Considering the advantages reported in this review, methods using consumer-generated data for foodborne disease surveillance warrant further investment.

Indexed as

digital disease detectiondiseasefoodborne diseasesinfodemiologyinfoveillancepublic healthreviewsocial media

Identifiers

PMID29875090
PMCPMC6010836

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.