Optimizing laboratory-based surveillance networks for monitoring multi-genotype or multi-serotype infections
Fig 3
Comparison between Existing, IncRate, and Optimal subtyping allocation strategies across locations.
Treemaps show the proportion of typing efforts allocated to each location in the (A) Existing, (B) IncRate, and Optimal designs that minimize the error in estimated serotype-specific incidence rate of (C) all HFMD cases and (D) only severe HFMD cases. Tiles represent study locations, with the area of the tile representing the proportion of all typing efforts allocated to the location, and the color of the tile representing the location’s annual mean HFMD incidence rate. Tiles are ordered by decreasing annual mean incidence rate from top to bottom, then left to right. Scatterplots show the correlation between annual mean incidence rate of the optimal proportion of total typing resources allocated to each location to minimize error in estimated serotype-specific incidence rate of (E) all HMFD cases and (F) only severe HFMD cases. Black dots represent the archetypal design IncRate (see definition in section 2.2.7), blue triangles in (E) and squares in (F) represent the optimal allocation strategy for minimizing error in estimating serotype-specific incidence rate for all cases and only severe cases, respectively. The blue lines represent the best fit relating annual mean incidence rates to typing allocations across the Optimal designs. Vertical arrows represent changes from IncRate to Optimal: red arrows represent increases in typing efforts from IncRate to Optimal; green arrows represent reductions in typing efforts from IncRate to Optimal. Inset figures show data for all prefectures, showing the range (red dashed rectangle) displayed in the main panel.