ArticleHealth science reports2025
Evaluation and Comparison of Statistical Methods for Early Detection of Respiratory Symptom Outbreaks: A Real-World Observational Study From Iran.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of different outbreak detection models for respiratory symptoms visits, identifying their strengths and weaknesses when applied to visit data. Methods: In this observational study, data from outpatient centers in the four Iranian provinces of Gilan, Qom, Khuzestan, and Sistan and Baluchestan were analyzed. The study covered a 6-month period from September 23, 2019, to March 19, 2020. Four outbreak detection models-Early Aberration Reporting System (EARS), Cumulative Sum (CUSUM), Farrington Model (FM), and Flexible Farrington Model (FFM)-were evaluated and compared against a gold standard for outbreak detection (defined as deviations exceeding two or three times the standard deviation). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, accuracy, false alarms, missed warnings, timeliness, and Yuden index were reported. Results: An average of 5857 respiratory symptom visits were recorded across the four provinces during the study period. Among the models, the FFM demonstrated superior performance. It achieved a weekly sensitivity of 75% and a daily sensitivity of 71.4%, with specificity reaching 100% weekly and 98.9% daily. The positive predictive value was 100% weekly and 96.8% daily, while the negative predictive value was 90% weekly and 87.8% daily. The model's accuracy was 92.3% on a weekly scale and 89.9% on a daily scale. FFM produced no false alarms on a weekly basis and only 3.2% false positives daily, with minimal missed warnings (10% weekly, 12.2% daily). Conclusion: The FFM outperformed CUSUM, EARS, and the standard FM in detecting respiratory symptoms outbreaks, demonstrating high sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and low false and missed alarm rates, making it a reliable tool for public health surveillance.
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.