Observational studyPublic health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)
Adapting Syndromic Surveillance Baselines After Public Health Interventions.
Observational study in Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPublic health surveillance requires historical baselines to identify unusual activity. However, these baselines require adjustment after public health interventions. We describe an example of such an adjustment after the introduction of rotavirus vaccine in England in July 2013.
methodsWe retrospectively measured the magnitude of differences between baselines and observed counts (residuals) before and after the introduction of a public health intervention, the introduction of a rotavirus vaccine in July 2013. We considered gastroenteritis, diarrhea, and vomiting to be indicators for national syndromic surveillance, including telephone calls to a telehealth system, emergency department visits, and unscheduled consultations with general practitioners. The start of the preintervention period varied depending on the availability of surveillance data: June 2005 for telehealth, November 2009 for emergency departments, and July 2010 for general practitioner data. The postintervention period was July 2013 to the second quarter of 2016. We then determined whether baselines incorporating a step-change reduction or a change in seasonality resulted in more accurate models of activity.
resultsResiduals in the unadjusted baseline models increased by 42%-198% from preintervention to postintervention. Increases in residuals for vomiting indicators were 19%-44% higher than for diarrhea. Both step-change and seasonality adjustments improved the surveillance models; we found the greatest reduction in residuals in seasonally adjusted models (4%-75%).
conclusionOur results demonstrated the importance of adjusting surveillance baselines after public health interventions, particularly accounting for changes in seasonality. Adjusted baselines produced more representative expected values than did unadjusted baselines, resulting in fewer false alarms and a greater likelihood of detecting public health threats.
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.