↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Algorithms for detecting and predicting influenza outbreaks: metanarrative review of prospective evaluations
Published in
BMJ Open, May 2016
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010683
Pubmed ID
Authors

A Spreco, T Timpka

Abstract

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. 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. 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. Awareness of the narrative format in which results are reported is essential when interpreting algorithm evaluations from an infectious disease control practice perspective.

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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 24%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 20%
Computer Science 9 20%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 11 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 February 2021.
All research outputs
#16,048,318
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#17,395
of 25,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,374
of 312,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#288
of 387 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,589 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 312,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 387 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.