Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36177867›Full record

ArticleEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2022

Epitweetr: Early warning of public health threats using Twitter data.

Laura Espinosa, Ariana Wijermans, Francisco Orchard, Michael Höhle, Thomas Czernichow, Pietro Coletti, Lisa Hermans, Christel Faes, Esther Kissling, Thomas Mollet

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Innovations in public health surveillance: An overview of novel use of data and analytic methods.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Laura EspinosaEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Stockholm, Sweden.
Ariana WijermansEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Stockholm, Sweden.
Francisco OrchardEpiconcept, Paris, France.
Michael HöhleStockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Thomas CzernichowEpiconcept, Paris, France.
Pietro ColettiHasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.
Lisa HermansHasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.
Christel FaesHasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.
Esther KisslingEpiconcept, Paris, France.
Thomas MolletEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundThe European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) systematically collates information from sources to rapidly detect early public health threats. The lack of a freely available, customisable and automated early warning tool using data from Twitter prompted the ECDC to develop epitweetr, which collects, geolocates and aggregates tweets generating signals and email alerts.AimThis study aims to compare the performance of epitweetr to manually monitoring tweets for the purpose of early detecting public health threats.MethodsWe calculated the general and specific positive predictive value (PPV) of signals generated by epitweetr between 19 October and 30 November 2020. Sensitivity, specificity, timeliness and accuracy and performance of tweet geolocation and signal detection algorithms obtained from epitweetr and the manual monitoring of 1,200 tweets were compared.ResultsThe epitweetr geolocation algorithm had an accuracy of 30.1% at national, and 25.9% at subnational levels. The signal detection algorithm had 3.0% general PPV and 74.6% specific PPV. Compared to manual monitoring, epitweetr had greater sensitivity (47.9% and 78.6%, respectively), and reduced PPV (97.9% and 74.6%, respectively). Median validation time difference between 16 common events detected by epitweetr and manual monitoring was -48.6 hours (IQR: -102.8 to -23.7).ConclusionEpitweetr has shown sufficient performance as an early warning tool for public health threats using Twitter data. Since epitweetr is a free, open-source tool with configurable settings and a strong automated component, it is expected to increase in usability and usefulness to public health experts.

Indexed as

Public HealthSocial MediaAlgorithmsData CollectionHumansearly warningepidemic intelligencemachine learningpublic healthTwitter

Identifiers

PMID36177867
PMCPMC9524055

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.