4.7 Article

Epidemiology and ARIMA model of positive-rate of influenza viruses among children in Wuhan, China: A nine-year retrospective study

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2018.07.003

关键词

Influenza virus; Children; Time series analysis; ARIMA model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Influenza is a common childhood disease andprotecting children by predicting the positive rate of influenza virus is important as vaccines are not routinely administered in China. Our study aims to describe the epidemiology of influenza viruses among children in Wuhan, China during the past nine influenza seasons (2007-2015) and to predict the positive rate of different types of influenza virus in the future. Methods: During the last nine influenza seasons (2007-2015), a total of 10,232 nasopharyngeal swabs collected from pediatric outpatients (age < 15 years) with influenza-like illness (ILI) infections in two sentinel children's hospitals were examined for influenza A and B by real-time one step RT-PCR. An autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model was used to fit the time series and to predict the future (first half of 2016) positive rates of different types of influenza virus. Results: A total of 1,341 specimens were positive for influenza A and 490 for influenza B. The majority of infected patients were 1-11 years old (87.7%). The ARIMA model could effectively predict the positive rate of influenza virus in a short time. ARIMA(0,0,11), SARIMA(1,0,0)(0,1,1)(12), ARIMA(0,0,1) and SARIMA(0,0,1) (1,0,1)(12) were suitable for B(Victoria), B(Yamagata), A(H1N1)pdm09, and A(H3N2), respectively. Conclusion: Additional policies must be formulated to prevent and control influenza. The wide use of influenza vaccines, especially for influenza B, especially for influenza B(Yamagata) and B(Victoria), can potentially reduce the effects of influenza on children of China. (c) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据