Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10870935›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2000

Survey on influenza laboratory diagnostic and surveillance methods in Europe. European Scientific Working Group on Influenza.

C Hannoun, B Tumova

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The role of respiratory viruses in cystic fibrosis.Journal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society · 2008
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

C HannounNational Institute of Public Health, Prague, Czech Republic. chann@club-internet.fr
B Tumova
National Institute of Public Health · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Health SurveysPopulation SurveillanceEuropeHumansImmunologic TestsInfluenza, HumanReproducibility of ResultsSerologic Tests

Identifiers

PMID10870935
OpenAlexW1582754513

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.