Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28482830›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2017

Comparing national infectious disease surveillance systems: China and the Netherlands.

Willemijn L Vlieg, Ewout B Fanoy, Liselotte van Asten, Xiaobo Liu, Jun Yang, Eva Pilot, Paul Bijkerk, Wim van der Hoek, Thomas Krafft, Marianne A van der Sande and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Crowdsourcing data to mitigate epidemics.The Lancet. Digital health · 2020
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System with a Data Architecture Approach: a Systematic Review.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2019
    Review
  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

11 authors.

Willemijn L VliegDepartment of Health, Ethics & Society, CAPHRI School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Ewout B FanoyCentre for Infectious Diseases, Epidemiology and Surveillance, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. ewout.fanoy@rivm.nl.
Liselotte van AstenCentre for Infectious Diseases, Epidemiology and Surveillance, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Xiaobo LiuState Key Laboratory of Infectious Disease Prevention and Control, Collaborative Innovation Centre for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, National Institute for Communicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, 102206, China.
Jun YangState Key Laboratory of Infectious Disease Prevention and Control, Collaborative Innovation Centre for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, National Institute for Communicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, 102206, China.
Eva PilotDepartment of Health, Ethics & Society, CAPHRI School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Paul BijkerkCentre for Infectious Diseases, Epidemiology and Surveillance, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Wim van der HoekCentre for Infectious Diseases, Epidemiology and Surveillance, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Thomas KrafftDepartment of Health, Ethics & Society, CAPHRI School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Marianne A van der SandeCentre for Infectious Diseases, Epidemiology and Surveillance, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Qi-Yong LiuState Key Laboratory of Infectious Disease Prevention and Control, Collaborative Innovation Centre for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, National Institute for Communicable Disease Control and Prevention, Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, 102206, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk assessment and early warning (RAEW) are essential components of any infectious disease surveillance system. In light of the International Health Regulations (IHR)(2005), this study compares the organisation of RAEW in China and the Netherlands. The respective approaches towards surveillance of arboviral disease and unexplained pneumonia were analysed to gain a better understanding of the RAEW mode of operation. This study may be used to explore options for further strengthening of global collaboration and timely detection and surveillance of infectious disease outbreaks.

methodsA qualitative study design was used, combining data retrieved from the literature and from semi-structured interviews with Chinese (5 national-level and 6 provincial-level) and Dutch (5 national-level) experts.

resultsThe results show that some differences exist such as in the use of automated electronic components of the early warning system in China ('CIDARS'), compared to a more limited automated component in the Netherlands ('barometer'). Moreover, RAEW units in the Netherlands focus exclusively on infectious diseases, while China has a broader 'all hazard' approach (including for example chemical incidents). In the Netherlands, veterinary specialists take part at the RAEW meetings, to enable a structured exchange/assessment of zoonotic signals.

conclusionDespite these differences, the main conclusion is that for the two infections studied, the early warning system in China and the Netherlands are remarkably similar considering their large differences in infectious disease history, population size and geographical setting. Our main recommendations are continued emphasis on international corporation that requires insight into national infectious disease surveillance systems, the usage of a One Health approach in infectious disease surveillance, and further exploration/strengthening of a combined syndromic and laboratory surveillance system.

Indexed as

Arbovirus InfectionsChinaCommunicable DiseasesDisease OutbreaksHumansNetherlandsPneumoniaPopulation SurveillanceQualitative ResearchRisk AssessmentArthropod borne virus disease surveillanceChinaInfectious disease surveillance systemsRisk assessment and early warningSurveillance of unexplained pneumoniaThe Netherlands

Identifiers

PMID28482830
PMCPMC5423001

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.