Heterogeneity in Estimates of the Impact of Influenza on Population Mortality: A Systematic Review

65Citations
Citations of this article
81Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Influenza viruses are associated with a substantial global burden of morbidity and mortality every year. Estimates of influenza-associated mortality often vary between studies due to differences in study settings, methods, and measurement of outcomes. We reviewed 103 published articles assessing population-based influenza-associated mortality through searches of PubMed and Embase, and we identified considerable variation in the statistical methods used across studies. Studies using regression models with an influenza activity proxy applied 4 approaches to estimate influenza-associated mortality. The estimates increased with age and ranged widely, from -0.3-1.3 and 0.6-8.3 respiratory deaths per 100,000 population for children and adults, respectively, to 4-119 respiratory deaths per 100,000 population for older adults. Meta-regression analysis identified that study design features were associated with the observed variation in estimates. The estimates increased with broader cause-of-death classification and were higher for older adults than for children. The multiplier methods tended to produce lower estimates, while Serfling-type models were associated with higher estimates than other methods. No "average" estimate of excess mortality could reliably be made due to the substantial variability of the estimates, partially attributable to methodological differences in the studies. Standardization of methodology in estimation of influenza-associated mortality would permit improved comparisons in the future.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Li, L., Wong, J. Y., Wu, P., Bond, H. S., Lau, E. H. Y., Sullivan, S. G., & Cowling, B. J. (2018, February 1). Heterogeneity in Estimates of the Impact of Influenza on Population Mortality: A Systematic Review. American Journal of Epidemiology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwx270

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free