Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39617738›Full record

ArticleInfluenza and other respiratory viruses2024

Biases in Routine Influenza Surveillance Indicators Used to Monitor Infection Incidence and Recommendations for Improvement.

Oliver Eales, James M McCaw, Freya M Shearer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Influenza and other respiratory viruses, 2024. 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Interim vaccine effectiveness against influenza virus among outpatients, France, October 2025 to January 2026.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Oliver EalesInfectious Disease Dynamics Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8086-4495
James M McCawInfectious Disease Dynamics Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2452-3098
Freya M ShearerInfectious Disease Dynamics Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9600-3473

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 2021/GNT2010051University of Melbourne
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMonitoring how the incidence of influenza infections changes over time is important for quantifying the transmission dynamics and clinical severity of influenza. Infection incidence is difficult to measure directly, and hence, other quantities which are more amenable to surveillance are used to monitor trends in infection levels, with the implicit assumption that they correlate with infection incidence.

methodsHere, we demonstrate, through mathematical reasoning using fundamental mathematical principles, the relationship between the incidence of influenza infections and three commonly reported surveillance indicators: (1) the rate per unit time of influenza-like illness reported through sentinel healthcare sites, (2) the rate per unit time of laboratory-confirmed influenza infections and (3) the proportion of laboratory tests positive for influenza ('test-positive proportion').

resultsOur analysis suggests that none of these ubiquitously reported surveillance indicators are a reliable tool for monitoring influenza incidence. In particular, we highlight how these surveillance indicators can be heavily biassed by the following: the dynamics of circulating pathogens (other than influenza) with similar symptom profiles, changes in testing rates and differences in infection rates, symptom rates and healthcare-seeking behaviour between age-groups and through time. We make six practical recommendations to improve the monitoring of influenza infection incidence. The implementation of our recommendations would enable the construction of more interpretable surveillance indicator(s) for influenza from which underlying patterns of infection incidence could be readily monitored.

conclusionsThe implementation of all (or a subset) of our recommendations would greatly improve understanding of the transmission dynamics, infection burden and clinical severity of influenza, improving our ability to respond effectively to seasonal epidemics and future pandemics.

Indexed as

Influenza, HumanBiasEpidemiological MonitoringHumansIncidenceModels, TheoreticalSentinel Surveillanceinfection incidenceinfluenzainfluenza‐like illnesssurveillancesurveillance indicators

Identifiers

PMID39617738
PMCPMC11608885

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.