MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564280070 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0168262

Assessing the State of Knowledge Regarding the Effectiveness of Interventions to Contain Pandemic Influenza Transmission: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

2016· review· en· W2564280070 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick Saunders‐Hastings, Jane Reisman, Daniel Krewski

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsPsychological interventionPandemicSystematic reviewCINAHLMedicineTransmission (telecommunications)MEDLINEEnvironmental healthMeta-analysisIntervention (counseling)Influenza pandemicIntensive care medicineFamily medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)BiologyNursingDiseaseComputer scienceInfectious disease (medical specialty)Pathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Influenza pandemics occur when a novel influenza strain, to which humans are immunologically naïve, emerges to cause infection and illness on a global scale. Differences in the viral properties of pandemic strains, relative to seasonal ones, can alter the effectiveness of interventions typically implemented to control seasonal influenza burden. As a result, annual control activities may not be sufficient to contain an influenza pandemic. PURPOSE: This study seeks to inform pandemic policy and planning initiatives by reviewing the effectiveness of previous interventions to reduce pandemic influenza transmission and infection. Results will inform the planning and design of more focused in-depth systematic reviews for specific types of interventions, thus providing the most comprehensive and current understanding of the potential for alternative interventions to mitigate the burden of pandemic influenza. METHODS: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining intervention effectiveness in containing pandemic influenza transmission was conducted using information collected from five databases (PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, Embase, and Cinahl/EBSCO). Two independent reviewers conducted study screening and quality assessment, extracting data related to intervention impact and effectiveness. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Most included reviews were of moderate to high quality. Although the degree of statistical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis, the present systematic review examines the wide variety of interventions that can impact influenza transmission in different ways. While it appears that pandemic influenza vaccination provides significant protection against infection, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that antiviral prophylaxis, seasonal influenza cross-protection, or a range of non-pharmaceutical strategies would provide appreciable protection when implemented in isolation. It is likely that an optimal intervention strategy will employ a combination of interventions in a layered approach, though more research is needed to substantiate this proposition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 42016039803.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.214
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.214
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.017
Bibliometrics0.0160.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.272
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207