4.6 Review

Algorithms for detecting and predicting influenza outbreaks: metanarrative review of prospective evaluations

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 6, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010683

关键词

influenza; detection algorithms; prediction algorithms; evaluation; meta-narrative review

资金

  1. Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency [2010-2788]
  2. Swedish Science Council [2008-5252]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Reliable monitoring of influenza seasons and pandemic outbreaks is essential for response planning, but compilations of reports on detection and prediction algorithm performance in influenza control practice are largely missing. The aim of this study is to perform a metanarrative review of prospective evaluations of influenza outbreak detection and prediction algorithms restricted settings where authentic surveillance data have been used. Design The study was performed as a metanarrative review. An electronic literature search was performed, papers selected and qualitative and semiquantitative content analyses were conducted. For data extraction and interpretations, researcher triangulation was used for quality assurance. Results Eight prospective evaluations were found that used authentic surveillance data: three studies evaluating detection and five studies evaluating prediction. The methodological perspectives and experiences from the evaluations were found to have been reported in narrative formats representing biodefence informatics and health policy research, respectively. The biodefence informatics narrative having an emphasis on verification of technically and mathematically sound algorithms constituted a large part of the reporting. Four evaluations were reported as health policy research narratives, thus formulated in a manner that allows the results to qualify as policy evidence. Conclusions Awareness of the narrative format in which results are reported is essential when interpreting algorithm evaluations from an infectious disease control practice perspective.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据