Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27625054›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2016

Modelling study to estimate the health burden of foodborne diseases: cases, general practice consultations and hospitalisations in the UK, 2009.

Sarah J O'Brien, Tricia L Larose, Goutam K Adak, Meirion R Evans, Clarence C Tam, Foodborne Disease Attribution Study Group

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The epidemiology of Shiga toxin-producingEpidemiology and infection · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. An atypical lipoteichoic acid fromThe Journal of biological chemistry · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Sarah J O'BrienUniversity of Liverpool Institute of Infection and Global Health, Liverpool, UK NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Gastrointestinal Infections, The Farr Institute@HeRC, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2896-8999
Tricia L LaroseDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK Department of Public Health and General Practice, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Goutam K AdakDepartment of Gastrointestinal, Emerging & Zoonotic Infections, Public Health England Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance and Control, London, UK.
Meirion R EvansInstitute of Primary Care and Public Health, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Clarence C TamDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Foodborne Disease Attribution Study Group
Cardiff University · GBNational University of Singapore · SGNorwegian University of Science and Technology · NOPublic Health England · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo generate estimates of the burden of UK-acquired foodborne disease accounting for uncertainty.

designA modelling study combining data from national public health surveillance systems for laboratory-confirmed infectious intestinal disease (IID) and outbreaks of foodborne disease and 2 prospective, population-based studies of IID in the community. The underlying data sets covered the time period 1993-2008. We used Monte Carlo simulation and a Bayesian approach, using a systematic review to generate Bayesian priors. We calculated point estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI).

settingUK, 2009. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pathogen-specific estimates of the number of cases, general practice (GP) consultations and hospitalisations for foodborne disease in the UK in 2009.

resultsBayesian approaches gave slightly more conservative estimates of overall health burden (∼511 000 cases vs 566 000 cases). Campylobacter is the most common foodborne pathogen, causing 280 400 (95% CrI 182 503-435 693) food-related cases and 38 860 (95% CrI 27 160-55 610) GP consultations annually. Despite this, there are only around 562 (95% CrI 189-1330) food-related hospital admissions due to Campylobacter, reflecting relatively low disease severity. Salmonella causes the largest number of hospitalisations, an estimated 2490 admissions (95% CrI 607-9631), closely followed by Escherichia coli O157 with 2233 admissions (95% CrI 170-32 159). Other common causes of foodborne disease include Clostridium perfringens, with an estimated 79 570 cases annually (95% CrI 30 700-211 298) and norovirus with 74 100 cases (95% CrI 61 150-89 660). Other viruses and protozoa ranked much lower as causes of foodborne disease.

conclusionsThe 3 models yielded similar estimates of the burden of foodborne illness in the UK and show that continued reductions in Campylobacter, Salmonella, E. coli O157, C. perfringens and norovirus are needed to mitigate the impact of foodborne disease.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalBayes TheoremCaliciviridae InfectionsCampylobacter InfectionsClostridium InfectionsCost of IllnessDisease OutbreaksEscherichia coli InfectionsFoodborne DiseasesFood SafetyHumansPatient AdmissionPopulation SurveillanceProspective StudiesReferral and ConsultationSalmonella InfectionsCampylobacterClostridium perfringensFoodborne diseaseFood safetyNorovirusSalmonella

Identifiers

PMID27625054
PMCPMC5030535
OpenAlexW2519019008

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.