Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38243198›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024

Evaluation and comparison of spatial cluster detection methods for improved decision making of disease surveillance: a case study of national dengue surveillance in Thailand.

Chawarat Rotejanaprasert, Kawin Chinpong, Andrew B Lawson, Peerut Chienwichai, Richard J Maude

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Chawarat Rotejanaprasert *Department of Tropical Hygiene, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. chawarat.rot@mahidol.ac.th.
Kawin Chinpong *Chulabhorn Learning and Research Centre, Chulabhorn Royal Academy, Bangkok, Thailand.
Andrew B LawsonDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Peerut ChienwichaiPrincess Srisavangavadhana College of Medicine, Chulabhorn Royal Academy, Bangkok, Thailand.
Richard J MaudeMahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Chulabhorn Hospital · THMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit · THMahidol University · THMedical University of South Carolina · US

Funding

Wellcome Trust 220211
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDengue is a mosquito-borne disease that causes over 300 million infections worldwide each year with no specific treatment available. Effective surveillance systems are needed for outbreak detection and resource allocation. Spatial cluster detection methods are commonly used, but no general guidance exists on the most appropriate method for dengue surveillance. Therefore, a comprehensive study is needed to assess different methods and provide guidance for dengue surveillance programs.

methodsTo evaluate the effectiveness of different cluster detection methods for dengue surveillance, we selected and assessed commonly used methods: Getis Ord [Formula: see text], Local Moran, SaTScan, and Bayesian modeling. We conducted a simulation study to compare their performance in detecting clusters, and applied all methods to a case study of dengue surveillance in Thailand in 2019 to further evaluate their practical utility.

resultsIn the simulation study, Getis Ord [Formula: see text] and Local Moran had similar performance, with most misdetections occurring at cluster boundaries and isolated hotspots. SaTScan showed better precision but was less effective at detecting inner outliers, although it performed well on large outbreaks. Bayesian convolution modeling had the highest overall precision in the simulation study. In the dengue case study in Thailand, Getis Ord [Formula: see text] and Local Moran missed most disease clusters, while SaTScan was mostly able to detect a large cluster. Bayesian disease mapping seemed to be the most effective, with adaptive detection of irregularly shaped disease anomalies.

conclusionsBayesian modeling showed to be the most effective method, demonstrating the best accuracy in adaptively identifying irregularly shaped disease anomalies. In contrast, SaTScan excelled in detecting large outbreaks and regular forms. This study provides empirical evidence for the selection of appropriate tools for dengue surveillance in Thailand, with potential applicability to other disease control programs in similar settings.

Indexed as

DengueAnimalsBayes TheoremCluster AnalysisDecision MakingDisease OutbreaksHumansThailandCluster detectionDengueSpatialSurveillanceThailand

Identifiers

PMID38243198
PMCPMC10797994
OpenAlexW4391033112

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.