↓ Skip to main content

A methodological framework for the evaluation of syndromic surveillance systems: a case study of England

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
Title
A methodological framework for the evaluation of syndromic surveillance systems: a case study of England
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5422-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Felipe J. Colón-González, Iain R. Lake, Roger A. Morbey, Alex J. Elliot, Richard Pebody, Gillian E. Smith

Abstract

Syndromic surveillance complements traditional public health surveillance by collecting and analysing health indicators in near real time. The rationale of syndromic surveillance is that it may detect health threats faster than traditional surveillance systems permitting more timely, and hence potentially more effective public health action. The effectiveness of syndromic surveillance largely relies on the methods used to detect aberrations. Very few studies have evaluated the performance of syndromic surveillance systems and consequently little is known about the types of events that such systems can and cannot detect. We introduce a framework for the evaluation of syndromic surveillance systems that can be used in any setting based upon the use of simulated scenarios. For a range of scenarios this allows the time and probability of detection to be determined and uncertainty is fully incorporated. In addition, we demonstrate how such a framework can model the benefits of increases in the number of centres reporting syndromic data and also determine the minimum size of outbreaks that can or cannot be detected. Here, we demonstrate its utility using simulations of national influenza outbreaks and localised outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis. Influenza outbreaks are consistently detected with larger outbreaks being detected in a more timely manner. Small cryptosporidiosis outbreaks (<1000 symptomatic individuals) are unlikely to be detected. We also demonstrate the advantages of having multiple syndromic data streams (e.g. emergency attendance data, telephone helpline data, general practice consultation data) as different streams are able to detect different outbreak types with different efficacy (e.g. emergency attendance data are useful for the detection of pandemic influenza but not for outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis). We also highlight that for any one disease, the utility of data streams may vary geographically, and that the detection ability of syndromic surveillance varies seasonally (e.g. an influenza outbreak starting in July is detected sooner than one starting later in the year). We argue that our framework constitutes a useful tool for public health emergency preparedness in multiple settings. The proposed framework allows the exhaustive evaluation of any syndromic surveillance system and constitutes a useful tool for emergency preparedness and response.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 20%
Student > Master 14 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 20 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Psychology 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 24 29%
Unknown 23 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 February 2022.
All research outputs
#7,409,480
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#8,155
of 17,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,760
of 343,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#219
of 322 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,876 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 322 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.