Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34995281›Full record

SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2022

Data-driven methods for dengue prediction and surveillance using real-world and Big Data: A systematic review.

Emmanuelle Sylvestre, Clarisse Joachim, Elsa Cécilia-Joseph, Guillaume Bouzillé, Boris Campillo-Gimenez, Marc Cuggia, André Cabié

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Emmanuelle SylvestreUniversité de Rennes, CHU Rennes, INSERM, LTSI - UMR 1099, Rennes, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0593-1408
Clarisse JoachimCHU Martinique, Pôle de Cancérologie Hématologie Urologie, Registre Général des Cancers de la Martinique, Martinique, France.
Elsa Cécilia-JosephCHU Martinique, Centre de Données Cliniques, Martinique, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7901-5517
Guillaume BouzilléUniversité de Rennes, CHU Rennes, INSERM, LTSI - UMR 1099, Rennes, France.
Boris Campillo-GimenezUniversité de Rennes, CHU Rennes, INSERM, LTSI - UMR 1099, Rennes, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2329-5265
Marc CuggiaUniversité de Rennes, CHU Rennes, INSERM, LTSI - UMR 1099, Rennes, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6943-3937
André CabiéCHU Martinique, Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit, Martinique, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0117-3061
Inserm · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Martinique · MQ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraditionally, dengue surveillance is based on case reporting to a central health agency. However, the delay between a case and its notification can limit the system responsiveness. Machine learning methods have been developed to reduce the reporting delays and to predict outbreaks, based on non-traditional and non-clinical data sources. The aim of this systematic review was to identify studies that used real-world data, Big Data and/or machine learning methods to monitor and predict dengue-related outcomes. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe performed a search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2020. The review (ID: CRD42020172472) focused on data-driven studies. Reviews, randomized control trials and descriptive studies were not included. Among the 119 studies included, 67% were published between 2016 and 2020, and 39% used at least one novel data stream. The aim of the included studies was to predict a dengue-related outcome (55%), assess the validity of data sources for dengue surveillance (23%), or both (22%). Most studies (60%) used a machine learning approach. Studies on dengue prediction compared different prediction models, or identified significant predictors among several covariates in a model. The most significant predictors were rainfall (43%), temperature (41%), and humidity (25%). The two models with the highest performances were Neural Networks and Decision Trees (52%), followed by Support Vector Machine (17%). We cannot rule out a selection bias in our study because of our two main limitations: we did not include preprints and could not obtain the opinion of other international experts. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Combining real-world data and Big Data with machine learning methods is a promising approach to improve dengue prediction and monitoring. Future studies should focus on how to better integrate all available data sources and methods to improve the response and dengue management by stakeholders.

Indexed as

Big DataDengueForecastingHumans

Identifiers

PMID34995281
PMCPMC8740963
OpenAlexW4206031026

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.