ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2000
Survey on influenza laboratory diagnostic and surveillance methods in Europe. European Scientific Working Group on Influenza.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost implications for the NHS of using the Alere™ i Influenza A & B near patient test with nasal swabs.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2018Article
- Rapid Molecular Detection and Differentiation of Influenza Viruses A and B.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2017Article
- A new porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus strain with highly conserved molecular characteristics in its parental and attenuated strains.Virus genes · 2014Article
- Evaluation of Alere i Influenza A&B for rapid detection of influenza viruses A and B.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2014Article
- The role of respiratory viruses in cystic fibrosis.Journal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society · 2008Article
- Nasal swab versus nasopharyngeal aspirate for isolation of respiratory viruses.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The survey was undertaken by ESWI in order to investigate the comparability of the laboratory diagnostic methods and the influenza surveillance systems used in 24 European countries. The results indicate considerable consensus in the general approaches to collection and use of clinical specimens, rapid diagnostic techniques, virus isolation techniques in eggs or/and MDCK cell lines, virus identification and use of inhibition of hemagglutination (IHA) and complement fixation (CF) tests for serological diagnostics. However, the details of the techniques used are somewhat heterogeneous: antigen detection methods (immunofluorescence versus immuno adsorbent assay), isolation methods (eggs versus tissue culture), reagents (locally produced, WHO, commercial) are not always equivalent and results are therefore not really comparable. Some of these discrepancies are due to a lack of resources or a lack of priority for influenza in the country. The greatest differences between individual countries exist in the epidemiological part of surveillance programmes. The mode of collection of influenza related mortality and absentism from work varies considerably in different countries. These findings indicate the need to harmonize viral procedures and surveillance systems in European countries in order to improve validity and comparability of results and as a prerequisite for early information on influenza etiology and spread.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.