Sensitivity of the Swedish statutory surveillance system for communicable diseases 1998-2002, assessed by the capture-recapture method

Epidemiology and Infection

Volumn 133, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 401-407

  Jansson, A ^a,b   Arneborn, M ^a   Ekdahl, Karl ^a,b  

^a SWEDISH INSTITUTE FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL   (Sweden)

^b KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL OBSERVATION; COMMUNICABLE DISEASE; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INTERNET; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MENINGOCOCCOSIS; METHICILLIN RESISTANT STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS; METHODOLOGY; PARALLEL DESIGN; PROCESS MONITORING; REGISTER; SALMONELLOSIS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TULAREMIA; EVALUATION; INFECTION CONTROL; MANDATORY REPORTING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SWEDEN;

COMMUNICABLE DISEASE CONTROL; COMMUNICABLE DISEASES; HUMANS; MANDATORY REPORTING; MENINGOCOCCAL INFECTIONS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SALMONELLA INFECTIONS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SWEDEN;

EID: 20844439355     PISSN: 09502688     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0950268804003632     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. CDC Guidelines Working Group. Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2001; 50: 1-35.
2. WHO. Protocol for the evaluation of epidemiological surveillance systems. WHO/EMC/DIS/97.2. 1997 (http://www.who.int/emc). Accessed 6 September 2003.
3. Teutsch SM. Considerations in planning a surveillance system. In: Teutsch SM, Churchill RE, eds. Principles and practice of public health surveillance. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 17-29.
4. Thacker SB. Historical development. In: Teutsch SM, Churchill RE, eds. Principles and practice of public health surveillance. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 1-16.
5. Romaguera RA, German RR, Klaucke DN. Evaluating public health surveillance. In: Teutsch SM, Churchill RE, eds. Principles and practice of public health surveillance. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 176-193.
6. Nanan DJ, White F. Capture-recapture: reconnaissance of a demographic technique in epidemiology. Chronic Dis Can 1997; 18: 144-148.
7. Reintjes R, Termorshuizen F, Van De Laar MJW. Assessing the sensitivity of STD surveillance in the Netherlands: an application of the capture-recapture method. Epidemiol Infect 1999; 122: 97-102.
8. Kirk MD, Dalton CB, Beers M, Cameron AS, Murray C. Timeliness of Salmonella notifications in South Australia. Aust NZ J Public Health 1999; 23: 198-200.
9. Jansson A, Arneborn M, Skärlund K, Ekdahl K. Timeliness of case reporting in the Swedish statutory surveillance of communicable diseases 1998-2002. Scand J Infect Dis (in press).
10. Doyle TJ, Glynn MK, Groseclose SL. Completeness of notifiable disease reporting in the United States: an analytical literature review. Am J Epidemiol 2002; 155: 866-874.
11. Chorba TL, Berkleman RL, Safford SK, Gibbs NP, Hull HF. Mandatory reporting of infectious diseases by clinicians. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1990; 39: 1-11, 16-17.
12. Effler P, Ching-Lee M, Bogard A, Ienong M-C, Nekomoto T, Jernigan D. Statewide system of electronic notifiable disease reporting from clinical laboratories. Comparing automated reporting with conventional methods. J Am Med Assoc 1999; 282: 845-850.
13. Devine MJ, Bellis MA, Tocque K, Syed Q. Whooping cough surveillance in the North West of England. Commun Dis Public Health 1998; 1: 121-125.
14. Whitfield K, Kelly H. Using the two-source capture-recapture method to estimate the incidence of acute flaccid paralysis in Victoria, Australia. Bull World Health Organ 2002; 80: 846-851.
15. Brenner H. Use and limitations of the capture-recapture method in disease monitoring with two dependent sources. Epidemiology 1995; 6: 42-48.
16. Desenclos J-C, Hubert B. Limitations to the universal use of capture-recapture methods. Int J Epidemiol 1994; 23: 1322-1323.
17. Allen CJ, Ferson MJ. Notification of infectious diseases by general practioners: a quantitative and qualitative study. Med J Aust 2000; 172: 325-328.
18. Simmons G, Whittaker R, Boyle K, Morris A, Upton A, Calder L. Could laboratory-based notification improve the control of foodborne illness in New Zealand? NZ Med J 2002; 115: 237-240.