A systematic review of dengue outbreak prediction models: Current scenario and future directions

Xing Yu Leung, Rakibul M. Islam, Mohammadmehdi Adhami, Dragan Ilic, Lara McDonald, Shanika Palawaththa, Basia Diug, Saif Ullah Munshi, Md Nazmul Karim

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleResearchpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Dengue is among the fastest-spreading vector-borne infectious disease, with outbreaks often overwhelm the health system and result in huge morbidity and mortality in its endemic populations in the absence of an efficient warning system. A large number of prediction models are currently in use globally. As such, this study aimed to systematically review the published literature that used quantitative models to predict dengue outbreaks and provide insights about the current practices. A systematic search was undertaken, using the Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science databases for published citations, without time or geographical restrictions. Study selection, data extraction and management process were devised in accordance with the 'Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies' ('CHARMS') framework. A total of 99 models were included in the review from 64 studies. Most models sourced climate (94.7%) and climate change (77.8%) data from agency reports and only 59.6% of the models adjusted for reporting time lag. All included models used climate predictors; 70.7% of them were built with only climate factors. Climate factors were used in combination with climate change factors (13.4%), both climate change and demographic factors (3.1%), vector factors (6.3%), and demographic factors (5.2%). Machine learning techniques were used for 39.4% of the models. Of these, random forest (15.4%), neural networks (23.1%) and ensemble models (10.3%) were notable. Among the statistical (60.6%) models, linear regression (18.3%), Poisson regression (18.3%), generalized additive models (16.7%) and time series/autoregressive models (26.7%) were notable. Around 20.2% of the models reported no validation at all and only 5.2% reported external validation. The reporting of methodology and model performance measures were inadequate in many of the existing prediction models. This review collates plausible predictors and methodological approaches, which will contribute to robust modelling in diverse settings and populations.

Original languageEnglish
Article number0010631
Number of pages21
JournalPLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
Volume17
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 13 Feb 2023

Cite this