2014
DOI: 10.1111/rssa.12055
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modelling Reporting Delays for Outbreak Detection in Infectious Disease Data

Abstract: The delay that necessarily occurs between the emergence of symptoms and the identification of the cause of those symptoms affects the timeliness of detection of emerging outbreaks of infectious diseases, and hence the ability to take preventive action. We study the delays that are associated with the collection of laboratory surveillance data in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, using 12 infections of contrasting characteristics. We use a continuous time spline-based model for the hazard of the delay distri… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
27
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As a result, when reporting delays are time-varying, as is often the case in epidemics [17], we show that the NobBS approach is less accurate compared to its performance in a stable delay distribution, but still shows improvement over the HH approach likely because the NobBS approach is informed by the number of cases experienced in previous weeks, not just the delay distribution, making it more robust to larger fluctuations. As mentioned, the HH approach software includes the option to model a time-varying delay explicitly in the nowcast approach, but requires specifying the time at which the delay distribution is expected to change (the change-point), which is generally not known in real-time.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 81%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As a result, when reporting delays are time-varying, as is often the case in epidemics [17], we show that the NobBS approach is less accurate compared to its performance in a stable delay distribution, but still shows improvement over the HH approach likely because the NobBS approach is informed by the number of cases experienced in previous weeks, not just the delay distribution, making it more robust to larger fluctuations. As mentioned, the HH approach software includes the option to model a time-varying delay explicitly in the nowcast approach, but requires specifying the time at which the delay distribution is expected to change (the change-point), which is generally not known in real-time.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…However, in the presence of simulated time-varying reporting delays, NobBS outperformed the HH in terms of confidence (NobBS average score = 0.06 vs. HH average score � 0), point estimates (NobBS rRMSE = 0.302 vs. HH rRMSE = 0.621), and accuracy of the predicted change (S3 Table). Such variations in the delay distribution are a reality in many epidemics [17].…”
Section: Nobbs Improves Nowcasting With Varying Reporting Delaysmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, in the presence of simulated time-varying reporting delays, NobBS outperformed the benchmark in terms of confidence (NobBS average score = 0.06 vs. benchmark average score ≈ 0), point estimates (NobBS rRMSE = 0.302 vs. benchmark rRMSE = 0.621), and accuracy of the predicted change (Table S3). Such variations are a reality in many epidemics (17).…”
Section: Nobbs Improves Nowcasting With Varying Reporting Delaysmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…() and Noufaily et al. () have analyzed reporting delays in European reporting systems, respectively, for Salmonella in France and 12 infections in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, Altmann et al.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This can be a hindrance to the timely detection of outbreaks. For example, Jones et al (2014) and Noufaily et al (2015) have analyzed reporting delays in European reporting systems, respectively, for Salmonella in France and 12 infections in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, Altmann et al (2011) and Höhle and an der Heiden (2014) have analyzed reporting delays during the German EHEC O104:H4 outbreak in particular.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%