ArticleApplied clinical informatics2017
Electronic Sentinel Surveillance of Influenza-like Illness. Experience from a pilot study in New Zealand.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Increasing Underrepresentation of Pacific Peoples in Community-Based Respiratory Surveillance in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2018-2024.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2026Article
- A Framework for Evaluating the Use of Surveillance Systems for Short-Term Influenza Forecasting.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2025Article
- Development and Evaluation of a Fully Automated Surveillance System for Influenza-Associated Hospitalization at a Multihospital Health System in Northeast Ohio.Applied clinical informatics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectronic reporting of Influenza-like illness (eILI) from primary care was implemented and evaluated in three general medical practices in New Zealand during May to September 2015.
objectiveTo measure the uptake of eILI and to identify the system's strength and limitations.
methodsAnalysis of transactional data from the eILI system; comparative study of influenza-like illness cases reported using manual methods and eILI; questionnaire administered to clinical and operational stakeholders.
resultsOver the study period 66% of total ILI cases were reported using eILI. Reporting timeliness improved significantly compared to manual reporting with an average of 24 minutes from submission by the clinician to processing in the national database. Users found the system to be user-friendly.
conclusioneILI assists clinicians to report ILI cases to public health authorities within a stipulated time period and is associated with faster, more reliable and improved information transfer.
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.