世界卫生组织推荐流感监测预警方法在2010—2025年中国流感预警中的应用效果比较

Application of influenza surveillance and early warning methods recommended by the World Health Organization in China

  • 摘要:
    目的 比较世界卫生组织推荐的3种流感监测预警方法在我国流感监测预警中应用效果,为我国流感监测预警提供科学依据。
    方法 收集2010年22周—2025年13周我国哨点医院流感病原学监测数据,分为夏季(22—39周)和冬春季(40—21周)分别建模。采取滚动建模方式基于峰值对齐法(PAM)、移动流行区间法(MEM)和自回归移动平均模型(ARIMA)建立预警模型。计算灵敏度、特异度、约登指数、kappa系数评价3种方法预警准确性及一致性;计算流行季节峰值提前预警周次数评价预警及时性。
    结果 总体上,PAM、MEM、ARIMA预警的灵敏度、特异度、约登指数分别为0.86、0.93、0.79,0.88、0.88、0.76,0.88、0.93、0.81;PAM(kappa=0.79,Z=15.57,P<0.001)、MEM(kappa=0.76,Z=15.03,P<0.001)与ARIMA(kappa=0.81,Z=16.06,P<0.001)与金标准结果均具有高度一致性。夏季PAM、MEM、ARIMA预警的灵敏度、特异度、约登指数分别为0.65、0.86、0.50,0.69、0.69、0.38,0.65、0.93、0.57。冬春季PAM、MEM、ARIMA预警的灵敏度、特异度、约登指数分别为0.93、0.95、0.88,0.94、0.93、0.88,0.96、0.93、0.89。2015、2017和2022年夏季,PAM、MEM、ARIMA均能在峰值来临前发出预警,提前周次介于3~8周;2015—2024年度冬春季,PAM、MEM、ARIMA均能在峰值前提前3~10周产生预警。
    结论 PAM、MEM、ARIMA3种方法在中国流感监测预警中总体表现良好,ARIMA最优,其次为PAM,MEM最差。冬春季3种模型效果均较好;夏季表现均较差,ARIMA相对较好。ARIMA综合表现最优,建议作为我国流感常规预警首选模型,PAM可辅助应用。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective To compare the effectiveness of three influenza surveillance and early warning methods recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) in influenza surveillance in China, and provide evidence for the improvement of influenza surveillance and early warning in China.
    Methods The etiological surveillance data of influenza from sentinel hospitals in China between week 22 of 2010 and week 13 of 2025 were collected, and the data in summer (weeks 22–39) and winter-spring (weeks 40–21) were used for modeling respectively. Early warning models were developed by using a rolling modeling approach based on Peak Alignment Method (PAM), Moving Epidemic Method (MEM), and Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model. The sensitivity, specificity, Youden’s index, and kappa coefficient were calculated to evaluate the accuracy and consistency of the three methods for early warning. The weeks ahead of incidence season by early warning was used to evaluate the timeliness.
    Results Overall, the sensitivity, specificity, and Youden’s index of PAM, MEM, and ARIMA were 0.86, 0.93, 0.79; 0.88, 0.88, 0.76; and 0.88, 0.93, 0.81, respectively. The kappa coefficients for PAM (0.79, Z=15.57, P<0.000), MEM (0.76, Z=15.03, P<0.000), and ARIMA (0.81, Z=16.06, P<0.000) all showed high consistency with the gold standard results. In the summer season, the sensitivity, specificity, and Youden’s index of PAM, MEM, and ARIMA were 0.65, 0.86, 0.50; 0.69, 0.69, 0.38; and 0.65, 0.93, 0.57, respectively. In the winter-spring season, the sensitivity, specificity, and Youden’s index of PAM, MEM, and ARIMA were 0.93, 0.95, 0.88; 0.94, 0.93, 0.88; and 0.96, 0.93, 0.89, respectively. In the summers of 2015, 2017, and 2022, The PAM, MEM, and ARIMA were all could be used for early warnings before the incidence peaks by 3 - 8 weeks. During the winter–spring seasons from 2015 to 2024, all the three models also made early warnings at 3 - 10 weeks ahead of the incidence peak.
    Conclusion All the three methods had good performance in the influenza surveillance and early warning system in China. ARIMA was the most optimal method, followed by PAM, and MEM was least effective. The models all had good performances during winter-spring season, but they were less effective during summer season, with ARIMA performing relatively better. Given its overall advantage, ARIMA is recommended as the routine model for influenza early warning in China, with PAM serving as a supplementary approach.

     

/

返回文章
返回