Cargando…

A Review of Evaluations of Electronic Event-Based Biosurveillance Systems

Electronic event-based biosurveillance systems (EEBS’s) that use near real-time information from the internet are an increasingly important source of epidemiologic intelligence. However, there has not been a systematic assessment of EEBS evaluations, which could identify key uncertainties about curr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gajewski, Kimberly N., Peterson, Amy E., Chitale, Rohit A., Pavlin, Julie A., Russell, Kevin L., Chretien, Jean-Paul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4203831/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25329886
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111222
_version_ 1782340442814152704
author Gajewski, Kimberly N.
Peterson, Amy E.
Chitale, Rohit A.
Pavlin, Julie A.
Russell, Kevin L.
Chretien, Jean-Paul
author_facet Gajewski, Kimberly N.
Peterson, Amy E.
Chitale, Rohit A.
Pavlin, Julie A.
Russell, Kevin L.
Chretien, Jean-Paul
author_sort Gajewski, Kimberly N.
collection PubMed
description Electronic event-based biosurveillance systems (EEBS’s) that use near real-time information from the internet are an increasingly important source of epidemiologic intelligence. However, there has not been a systematic assessment of EEBS evaluations, which could identify key uncertainties about current systems and guide EEBS development to most effectively exploit web-based information for biosurveillance. To conduct this assessment, we searched PubMed and Google Scholar to identify peer-reviewed evaluations of EEBS’s. We included EEBS’s that use publicly available internet information sources, cover events that are relevant to human health, and have global scope. To assess the publications using a common framework, we constructed a list of 17 EEBS attributes from published guidelines for evaluating health surveillance systems. We identified 11 EEBS’s and 20 evaluations of these EEBS’s. The number of published evaluations per EEBS ranged from 1 (Gen-Db, GODsN, MiTAP) to 8 (GPHIN, HealthMap). The median number of evaluation variables assessed per EEBS was 8 (range, 3–15). Ten published evaluations contained quantitative assessments of at least one key variable. No evaluations examined usefulness by identifying specific public health decisions, actions, or outcomes resulting from EEBS outputs. Future EEBS assessments should identify and discuss critical indicators of public health utility, especially the impact of EEBS’s on public health response.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4203831
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42038312014-10-27 A Review of Evaluations of Electronic Event-Based Biosurveillance Systems Gajewski, Kimberly N. Peterson, Amy E. Chitale, Rohit A. Pavlin, Julie A. Russell, Kevin L. Chretien, Jean-Paul PLoS One Research Article Electronic event-based biosurveillance systems (EEBS’s) that use near real-time information from the internet are an increasingly important source of epidemiologic intelligence. However, there has not been a systematic assessment of EEBS evaluations, which could identify key uncertainties about current systems and guide EEBS development to most effectively exploit web-based information for biosurveillance. To conduct this assessment, we searched PubMed and Google Scholar to identify peer-reviewed evaluations of EEBS’s. We included EEBS’s that use publicly available internet information sources, cover events that are relevant to human health, and have global scope. To assess the publications using a common framework, we constructed a list of 17 EEBS attributes from published guidelines for evaluating health surveillance systems. We identified 11 EEBS’s and 20 evaluations of these EEBS’s. The number of published evaluations per EEBS ranged from 1 (Gen-Db, GODsN, MiTAP) to 8 (GPHIN, HealthMap). The median number of evaluation variables assessed per EEBS was 8 (range, 3–15). Ten published evaluations contained quantitative assessments of at least one key variable. No evaluations examined usefulness by identifying specific public health decisions, actions, or outcomes resulting from EEBS outputs. Future EEBS assessments should identify and discuss critical indicators of public health utility, especially the impact of EEBS’s on public health response. Public Library of Science 2014-10-20 /pmc/articles/PMC4203831/ /pubmed/25329886 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111222 Text en https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Public Domain declaration, which stipulates that, once placed in the public domain, this work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose.
spellingShingle Research Article
Gajewski, Kimberly N.
Peterson, Amy E.
Chitale, Rohit A.
Pavlin, Julie A.
Russell, Kevin L.
Chretien, Jean-Paul
A Review of Evaluations of Electronic Event-Based Biosurveillance Systems
title A Review of Evaluations of Electronic Event-Based Biosurveillance Systems
title_full A Review of Evaluations of Electronic Event-Based Biosurveillance Systems
title_fullStr A Review of Evaluations of Electronic Event-Based Biosurveillance Systems
title_full_unstemmed A Review of Evaluations of Electronic Event-Based Biosurveillance Systems
title_short A Review of Evaluations of Electronic Event-Based Biosurveillance Systems
title_sort review of evaluations of electronic event-based biosurveillance systems
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4203831/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25329886
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111222
work_keys_str_mv AT gajewskikimberlyn areviewofevaluationsofelectroniceventbasedbiosurveillancesystems
AT petersonamye areviewofevaluationsofelectroniceventbasedbiosurveillancesystems
AT chitalerohita areviewofevaluationsofelectroniceventbasedbiosurveillancesystems
AT pavlinjuliea areviewofevaluationsofelectroniceventbasedbiosurveillancesystems
AT russellkevinl areviewofevaluationsofelectroniceventbasedbiosurveillancesystems
AT chretienjeanpaul areviewofevaluationsofelectroniceventbasedbiosurveillancesystems
AT gajewskikimberlyn reviewofevaluationsofelectroniceventbasedbiosurveillancesystems
AT petersonamye reviewofevaluationsofelectroniceventbasedbiosurveillancesystems
AT chitalerohita reviewofevaluationsofelectroniceventbasedbiosurveillancesystems
AT pavlinjuliea reviewofevaluationsofelectroniceventbasedbiosurveillancesystems
AT russellkevinl reviewofevaluationsofelectroniceventbasedbiosurveillancesystems
AT chretienjeanpaul reviewofevaluationsofelectroniceventbasedbiosurveillancesystems