Participatory syndromic surveillance as a tool for tracking COVID-19 in Bangladesh

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.28.20183905: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the limitations of traditional surveillance systems in terms of their timeliness and scalability. Unlike traditional surveillance that requires patients to interact with the healthcare system, and are limited by testing capacity and reporting delays, participatory surveillance relies on the self-reporting of symptoms. Crowdsourced participatory surveillance, through phone hotlines, mobile phone applications, and the internet, have been used in many contexts and have shown the greatest promise for influenza surveillance [7], [17]-[20]. Given the rapid global increase in the use of mobile phones and access to the internet, these surveillance systems can provide a useful complement for more traditional surveillance systems [2]. Here, we show the potential use of participatory syndromic surveillance for tracking the COVID-19 outbreak in Bangladesh. These self-reported systems were set up very rapidly as the COVID-19 epidemic started to emerge in Bangladesh. Although we observe considerable noise in the data and initial volatility in the use of the different reporting mechanisms, as expected, the self-reported data is positively correlated with confirmed cases at the upazila level a week later. Since the data from this tool is not being used to guide testing currently, we can be reasonably confident that the signal is not the cause of more testing, but it remains difficult to determine how tests are allocated across the country. We mus...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.