Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20444246›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2010

Methods for determining disease burden and calibrating national surveillance data in the United Kingdom: the second study of infectious intestinal disease in the community (IID2 study).

Sarah J O'Brien, Greta Rait, Paul R Hunter, James J Gray, Frederick J Bolton, David S Tompkins, Jim McLauchlin, Louise H Letley, Goutam K Adak, John M Cowden and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Model selection for seasonal influenza forecasting.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2017
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The incidence of acute gastrointestinal illness in Sweden.Scandinavian journal of public health · 2015
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

16 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah J O'BrienSchool of Translational Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. sarah.o'brien@manchester.ac.uk
Greta Rait
Paul R Hunter
James J Gray
Frederick J Bolton
David S Tompkins
Jim McLauchlin
Louise H Letley
Goutam K Adak
John M Cowden
Meirion R Evans
Keith R Neal
Gillian E Smith
Brian Smyth
Clarence C Tam
Laura C Rodrigues
Framework · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBBelfast City Hospital · GBCardiff University · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U122785837Medical Research Council MC_U122797164
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInfectious intestinal disease (IID), usually presenting as diarrhoea and vomiting, is frequently preventable. Though often mild and self-limiting, its commonness makes IID an important public health problem. In the mid 1990s around 1 in 5 people in England suffered from IID a year, costing around pound0.75 billion. No routine information source describes the UK's current community burden of IID. We present here the methods for a study to determine rates and aetiology of IID in the community, presenting to primary care and recorded in national surveillance statistics. We will also outline methods to determine whether or not incidence has declined since the mid-1990s. METHODS/

designThe Second Study of Infectious Intestinal Disease in the Community (IID2 Study) comprises several separate but related studies. We use two methods to describe IID burden in the community - a retrospective telephone survey of self-reported illness and a prospective, all-age, population-based cohort study with weekly follow-up over a calendar year. Results from the two methods will be compared. To determine IID burden presenting to primary care we perform a prospective study of people presenting to their General Practitioner with symptoms of IID, in which we intervene in clinical and laboratory practice, and an audit of routine clinical and laboratory practice in primary care. We determine aetiology of IID using molecular methods for a wide range of gastrointestinal pathogens, in addition to conventional diagnostic microbiological techniques, and characterise isolates further through reference typing. Finally, we combine all our results to calibrate national surveillance data. DISCUSSION: Researchers disagree about the best method(s) to ascertain disease burden. Our study will allow an evaluation of methods to determine the community burden of IID by comparing the different approaches to estimate IID incidence in its linked components.

Indexed as

Population SurveillanceCalibrationCohort StudiesCommunicable DiseasesCost of IllnessHealth SurveysHumansIncidenceIntestinal DiseasesPoisson DistributionRetrospective StudiesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID20444246
PMCPMC2886083
OpenAlexW2112503043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.