Comparing Outbreak Detection Methods
Author Information
Author(s): Masja Straetemans, Doris Altmann, Tim Eckmanns, Gérard Krause
Primary Institution: Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany
Hypothesis
The study aims to determine the efficacy of automatic outbreak detection algorithms (AODAs) compared to electronic reporting systems for infectious disease outbreaks.
Conclusion
The study found that local health departments reported outbreaks with higher sensitivity and positive predictive value than automatic outbreak detection algorithms.
Supporting Evidence
- Local health departments reported outbreaks with higher sensitivity than AODAs.
- The positive predictive value of AODA was lower for Campylobacter spp. than for norovirus.
- Only 6.4% of Campylobacter spp. signal outbreaks were associated with reported outbreaks.
Takeaway
This study looked at how well computers can find disease outbreaks compared to people reporting them, and it turns out people are better at it.
Methodology
The study analyzed 3,582 AODA signals and 4,427 reports of outbreaks caused by Campylobacter spp. or norovirus during 2005–2006 in Germany.
Potential Biases
There may be a bias in the reporting of outbreaks, as local health departments might be more inclined to report norovirus outbreaks than Campylobacter spp. outbreaks.
Limitations
The outbreak reporting may be incomplete, which could affect the evaluation of AODA performance.
Participant Demographics
The study focused on outbreaks reported by local health departments in Germany.
Statistical Information
P-Value
6.4% for Campylobacter spp., 75.5% for norovirus
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website