ArticleEpidemics2026
Estimating influenza transmission parameters: Comparing two study designs, 2023-2024.
Article in Epidemics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Household studies play a critical role in estimating influenza transmission parameters, which are essential for real-time modeling of epidemic and pandemic dynamics to inform influenza control strategies. We compared two approaches for estimating household influenza transmission parameters from multisite studies conducted in the United States during the 2023-2024 influenza season: interviewing index cases about illnesses among household contacts (n = 1537 contacts) and prospective enrollment of index cases and their household contacts with systematic, daily symptom assessment and testing (n = 857 contacts). We compared the detection of symptomatic illness, influenza-like illness (ILI; fever and either cough or sore throat), influenza virus infection, and estimated serial illness onset intervals among household contacts across studies. Symptomatic illness episodes among household contacts were identified in 40 % of contacts by index case interview compared to 59 % of contacts from individual daily follow-up. Reports of ILI were more comparable between platforms (20 % vs. 26 % respectively). Index case interviews identified 12 % of household contacts with positive influenza tests while systematic, daily testing in the individual daily follow-up platform identified influenza infection among 44 % of household contacts. Both platforms yielded a median serial interval of 4 days. While index case interviews offer rapid, resource-efficient data collection and can inform epidemiological outcomes such as age-related risks and serial intervals, they substantially underestimate laboratory-confirmed influenza cases compared to systematic daily follow-up. These findings highlight the importance of study design in accurately capturing transmission dynamics and underscore the need for systematic laboratory testing to inform public health responses.
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.