Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: The European Centres for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) estimates that seasonal influenza causes 4-50 million symptomatic infections in the EU/EEA each year and 15,000-70,000 European citizens die of causes associated with influenza. We used modelling methods to estimate influenza-associated mortality for the European Union by age group and country. METHODS: We compiled influenza-associated respiratory mortality estimates for 31 countries around the world (11 countries in the EU) during 2002-2011 (excluding the 2009 pandemic). From these we extrapolated the influenza mortality burden for all 193 countries of the world, including the 28 countries of the EU, using a multiple imputation approach. To study the effect of vaccination programs, we obtained data from the EU-funded VENICE project regarding the percentage of persons over 65 who were vaccinated in each country; the data ranged from 2% to 82% between the 21 countries which provided estimates for the 2006/07 reference season. RESULTS: We estimated that an average of 27,600 (range 16,200-39,000) respiratory deaths were associated with seasonal influenza in the 28 EU countries per winter; 88% were among people 65 years and older, and the rates of mortality in this age group were roughly 35 times higher compared with those <65 years. Estimates varied considerably across the EU; for example, rates in the elderly ranged from 21.6 (12.5-35.1) per 100,000 in Portugal to 36.5 (16.4-62.5) in Luxembourg, a difference of nearly 70%. We were unable to find a negative correlation between vaccination coverage rates and influenza-associated mortality estimates in the elderly. CONCLUSION: Our EU estimate of influenza-associated respiratory mortality is broadly consistent with the ECDC estimate. More research is needed to explain the observed variation in mortality across the EU, and on possible bias that could explain the unexpected lack of mortality benefits associated with European elderly influenza vaccination programs.

NGR reports funding by NIGMS grant R35GM119582. BMA is supported by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation through the Global Good Fund. SP and IMB were funded by the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch (GEIS: P0116_19_WR_03.11). ; Introduction: High quality epidemic forecasting and prediction are critical to support response to local, regional and global infectious disease threats. Other fields of biomedical research use consensus reporting guidelines to ensure standardization and quality of research practice among researchers, and to provide a framework for end-users to interpret the validity of study results. The purpose of this study was to determine whether guidelines exist specifically for epidemic forecast and prediction publications. Methods: We undertook a formal systematic review to identify and evaluate any published infectious disease epidemic forecasting and prediction reporting guidelines. This review leveraged a team of 18 investigators from US Government and academic sectors. Results: A literature database search through May 26, 2019, identified 1467 publications (MEDLINE n = 584, EMBASE n = 883), and a grey-literature review identified a further 407 publications, yielding a total 1777 unique publications. A paired-reviewer system screened in 25 potentially eligible publications, of which two were ultimately deemed eligible. A qualitative review of these two published reporting guidelines indicated that neither were specific for epidemic forecasting and prediction, although they described reporting items which may be relevant to epidemic forecasting and prediction studies. Conclusions: This systematic review confirms that no specific guidelines have been published to standardize the reporting of epidemic forecasting and prediction studies. These findings underscore the need to develop such reporting guidelines in order to improve the transparency, quality and implementation of epidemic forecasting and prediction research in operational public health. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed

INTRODUCTION: High quality epidemic forecasting and prediction are critical to support response to local, regional and global infectious disease threats. Other fields of biomedical research use consensus reporting guidelines to ensure standardization and quality of research practice among researchers, and to provide a framework for end-users to interpret the validity of study results. The purpose of this study was to determine whether guidelines exist specifically for epidemic forecast and prediction publications. METHODS: We undertook a formal systematic review to identify and evaluate any published infectious disease epidemic forecasting and prediction reporting guidelines. This review leveraged a team of 18 investigators from US Government and academic sectors. RESULTS: A literature database search through May 26, 2019, identified 1467 publications (MEDLINE n = 584, EMBASE n = 883), and a grey-literature review identified a further 407 publications, yielding a total 1777 unique publications. A paired-reviewer system screened in 25 potentially eligible publications, of which two were ultimately deemed eligible. A qualitative review of these two published reporting guidelines indicated that neither were specific for epidemic forecasting and prediction, although they described reporting items which may be relevant to epidemic forecasting and prediction studies. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review confirms that no specific guidelines have been published to standardize the reporting of epidemic forecasting and prediction studies. These findings underscore the need to develop such reporting guidelines in order to improve the transparency, quality and implementation of epidemic forecasting and prediction research in operational public health.

INTRODUCTION: High quality epidemic forecasting and prediction are critical to support response to local, regional and global infectious disease threats. Other fields of biomedical research use consensus reporting guidelines to ensure standardization and quality of research practice among researchers, and to provide a framework for end-users to interpret the validity of study results. The purpose of this study was to determine whether guidelines exist specifically for epidemic forecast and prediction publications. METHODS: We undertook a formal systematic review to identify and evaluate any published infectious disease epidemic forecasting and prediction reporting guidelines. This review leveraged a team of 18 investigators from US Government and academic sectors. RESULTS: A literature database search through May 26, 2019, identified 1467 publications (MEDLINE n = 584, EMBASE n = 883), and a grey-literature review identified a further 407 publications, yielding a total 1777 unique publications. A paired-reviewer system screened in 25 potentially eligible publications, of which two were ultimately deemed eligible. A qualitative review of these two published reporting guidelines indicated that neither were specific for epidemic forecasting and prediction, although they described reporting items which may be relevant to epidemic forecasting and prediction studies. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review confirms that no specific guidelines have been published to standardize the reporting of epidemic forecasting and prediction studies. These findings underscore the need to develop such reporting guidelines in order to improve the transparency, quality and implementation of epidemic forecasting and prediction research in operational public health.