Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42832413›Full record

ReviewPLOS digital health2026

Recommendations for the analysis of leading indicators in epidemic surveillance.

Jonathon Mellor, Maria Tang, Robert S Paton, Thomas Ward

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Jonathon MellorChief Data Officer Group, UK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8743-0817
Maria TangChief Data Officer Group, UK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Robert S PatonChief Data Officer Group, UK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Thomas WardChief Data Officer Group, UK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Leading indicator analyses, a type of time series analysis, are frequently used to assess how epidemic surveillance signals relate to one another. Strong leading indicators can drive early, and better decisions in public health systems. We conducted a narrative review of leading indicator studies and evaluated methodological limitations in their reporting and analysis, which we used to generate recommendations in retrospective surveillance analyses. Achievable recommendations are provided based on the reporting and analysis components of real-time epidemic time series analysis. We provide contextual examples from the literature of previous studies demonstrating good practice and highlighting areas for improvement. We present a checklist and workflow that emphases real-time constraints. These recommendations include causal mechanism reporting, sample coverage and bias, reporting delays and data revisions, multiple event measurement, spatio-temporal granularly, time varying relationships, smoothing, transformations, uncertainty, and predictive utility. By following these good practices, analysts can improve research on leading indicators to make analyses more directly actionable for public health decision makers. This work builds on the existing methodology literature by giving a broader framework for overall good practices.

Identifiers

PMID42832413
PMCPMC13637922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.