ArticlePloS one2016
Estimating the Incidence of Acute Infectious Intestinal Disease in the Community in the UK: A Retrospective Telephone Survey.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Burden of gastrointestinal illness in Sweden-SMS as a tool for collecting self-reported gastrointestinal illness.Epidemiology and infection · 2019Trial
- The epidemiology of acute gastrointestinal illness in Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nigeria, and Tanzania: a population survey.Epidemiology and infection · 2025Article
- The complex association between drinking water consumption and endemic gastrointestinal illness as shown by Swedish cohort studies.Journal of water and health · 2024Article
- Prevalence and distribution of acute gastrointestinal illness in the community of China: a population-based face-to-face survey, 2014-2015.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Can foodborne illness estimates from different countries be legitimately compared?: case study of rates in the UK compared with Australia, Canada and USA.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Foodborne Toxigenic Agents Investigated in Central Italy: An Overview of a Three-Year Experience (2018-2020).Toxins · 2022Article
- Birth cohort studies using symptom diaries for assessing respiratory diseases-a scoping review.PloS one · 2022Article
- "Sickenin' in the rain" - increased risk of gastrointestinal and respiratory infections after urban pluvial flooding in a population-based cross-sectional study in the Netherlands.BMC infectious diseases · 2019Article
- The burden of gastroenteritis in Switzerland (BUGS) study: a research proposal for a 1-year, prospective cohort study.BMC research notes · 2018Article
- An Ontology to Improve Transparency in Case Definition and Increase Case Finding of Infectious Intestinal Disease: Database Study in English General Practice.JMIR medical informatics · 2017Article
- Incidence and comparison of retrospective and prospective data on respiratory and gastrointestinal infections in German households.BMC infectious diseases · 2017Article
- The Incidence of Acute Gastrointestinal Illness in Canada, Foodbook Survey 2014-2015.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo estimate the burden of intestinal infectious disease (IID) in the UK and determine whether disease burden estimations using a retrospective study design differ from those using a prospective study design. DESIGN/
settingA retrospective telephone survey undertaken in each of the four countries comprising the United Kingdom. Participants were randomly asked about illness either in the past 7 or 28 days.
participants14,813 individuals for all of whom we had a legible recording of their agreement to participate. OUTCOMES: Self-reported IID, defined as loose stools or clinically significant vomiting lasting less than two weeks, in the absence of a known non-infectious cause.
resultsThe rate of self-reported IID varied substantially depending on whether asked for illness in the previous 7 or 28 days. After standardising for age and sex, and adjusting for the number of interviews completed each month and the relative size of each UK country, the estimated rate of IID in the 7-day recall group was 1,530 cases per 1,000 person-years (95% CI: 1135-2113), while in the 28-day recall group it was 533 cases per 1,000 person-years (95% CI: 377-778). There was no significant variation in rates between the four countries. Rates in this study were also higher than in a related prospective study undertaken at the same time.
conclusionsThe estimated burden of disease from IID varied dramatically depending on study design. Retrospective studies of IID give higher estimates of disease burden than prospective studies. Of retrospective studies longer recall periods give lower estimated rates than studies with short recall periods. Caution needs to be exercised when comparing studies of self-reported IID as small changes in study design or case definition can markedly affect estimated rates.
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.