Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10160485›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics1996

The impact of three influenza epidemics on primary care in England and Wales.

D M Fleming

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Bird flu: if or when? Planning for the next pandemic.Postgraduate medical journal · 2007
    Review
  4. The common cold: a review of the literature.European journal of internal medicine · 2004
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

D M FlemingBirmingham Research Unit, Royal College of General Practitioners, England.
Royal College of General Practitioners · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The numbers of persons with influenza presenting to general practitioners in England and Wales during the epidemics of late 1989, late 1993, and early 1995 are estimated to be approximately 760,00, 480,000 and 192,000, respectively. The expected numbers used to derive these estimates were obtained by averaging incidence by week over the 9 winters of 1986/87 to 1994/95, excluding those weeks in which influenza was prevalent. These 3 epidemics varied in magnitude and in the relative impact on persons in different age groups. The influenza B epidemic in 1995 scarcely affected elderly people. During the 3 epidemic periods, increased numbers of persons consulted their general practitioners with other respiratory diseases, including pneumonia, acute bronchitis and otitis media. The patterns of increase were not consistent between the epidemics, partly because of the differing impact on the various age groups and partly because of the effect of other respiratory viral illnesses prevalent at the same time. No increase occurred in the numbers of persons reported with new episodes of cerebrovascular accident or of acute myocardial infarction. A similar method was used to estimate excess deaths, which amounted to 25,000 in 1989, 13,000 in 1993, and 500 in 1995. In the periods immediately following the influenza epidemics, the observed pattern of deaths conformed to the expected, demonstrating that persons dying during the epidemics were not just dying a few weeks prematurely.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareDisease OutbreaksAgingEnglandHumansIncidenceInfluenza, HumanWales

Identifiers

PMID10160485
OpenAlexW2016497602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.