London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
BMC Public Health. 2010 Oct 27;10:650. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-650.
Internet-based surveillance systems to monitor influenza-like illness (ILI) have advantages over traditional (physician-based) reporting systems, as they can potentially monitor a wider range of cases (i.e. including those that do not seek care). However, the requirement for participants to have internet access and to actively participate calls into question the representativeness of the data. Such systems have been in place in a number of European countries over the last few years, and in July 2009 this was extended to the UK. Here we present results of this survey with the aim of assessing the reliability of the data, and to evaluate methods to correct for possible biases.
Internet-based monitoring of ILI was launched near the peak of the first wave of the UK H1N1v influenza pandemic. We compared the recorded ILI incidence with physician-recorded incidence and an estimate of the true number of cases over the course of the epidemic. We also compared overall attack rates. The effect of using different ILI definitions and alternative denominator assumptions on incidence estimates was explored.
The crude incidence measured by the internet-based system appears to be influenced by individuals who participated only once in the survey and who appeared more likely to be ill. This distorted the overall incidence trend. Concentrating on individuals who reported more than once results in a time series of ILI incidence that matches the trend of case estimates reasonably closely, with a correlation of 0.713 (P-value: 0.0001, 95% CI: 0.435, 0.867). Indeed, the internet-based system appears to give a better estimate of the relative height of the two waves of the UK pandemic than the physician-recorded incidence. The overall attack rate is, however, higher than other estimates, at about 16% when compared with a model-based estimate of 6%.
Internet-based monitoring of ILI can capture the trends in case numbers if appropriate weighting is used to correct for differential response. The overall level of incidence is, however, difficult to measure. Internet-based systems may be a useful adjunct to existing ILI surveillance systems as they capture cases that do not necessarily contact health care. However, further research is required before they can be used to accurately assess the absolute level of incidence in the community.
基于互联网的监测系统可以监测流感样疾病(ILI),与传统的(基于医生的)报告系统相比具有优势,因为它们可以潜在地监测更广泛的病例(即包括那些没有寻求医疗的病例)。然而,要求参与者具有互联网访问权限并积极参与会引起数据代表性的问题。过去几年,一些欧洲国家已经建立了这样的系统,并且在 2009 年 7 月,英国也将其扩展到了这些系统中。在这里,我们展示了这项调查的结果,旨在评估数据的可靠性,并评估纠正可能存在的偏差的方法。
在英国 H1N1v 流感大流行的第一波高峰期间,启动了基于互联网的 ILI 监测。我们将记录的 ILI 发病率与医生记录的发病率和疫情期间实际病例数的估计值进行了比较。我们还比较了总体攻击率。我们还探讨了使用不同的 ILI 定义和替代分母假设对发病率估计的影响。
基于互联网的系统测量的粗发病率似乎受到仅参与一次调查的个体的影响,而这些个体似乎更容易生病。这扭曲了整体发病率趋势。将重点放在多次报告的个体上,就可以得到与病例估计值相当吻合的 ILI 发病率时间序列,相关性为 0.713(P 值:0.0001,95%CI:0.435,0.867)。实际上,与医生记录的发病率相比,基于互联网的系统似乎更能准确地估计英国大流行的两波的相对高度。但是,与基于模型的估计值 6%相比,总体攻击率更高,约为 16%。
如果使用适当的加权来纠正不同的反应,则基于互联网的 ILI 监测可以捕捉病例数量的趋势。但是,很难测量发病率的总体水平。基于互联网的系统可能是现有 ILI 监测系统的有用补充,因为它们可以捕获那些不一定接触医疗保健的病例。但是,在可以准确评估社区中绝对发病率之前,还需要进行进一步的研究。