ArticleEpidemiology and infection2019
Notification data and criteria during a large Q-fever epidemic reassessed.
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2019. 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.
- No increased risk of mature B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma after Q fever detected: results from a 16-year ecological analysis of the Dutch population incorporating the 2007-2010 Q fever outbreak.International journal of epidemiology · 2022Article
- Research Trends and Hotspots of Q Fever Research: A Bibliometric Analysis 1990-2019.BioMed research international · 2022Review
- Q fever seroprevalence in parturient women: the EQRUN cross-sectional study on Reunion Island.BMC infectious diseases · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
From 2007 to 2010, the largest reported Q-fever epidemic occurred in the Netherlands with 4026 notified laboratory-confirmed cases. During the course of the epidemic, health-seeking behaviour changed and awareness among health professionals increased. Changes in laboratory workflows were implemented. The aim of this study was to analyse how these changes instigated adjustments of notification criteria and how these adjustments affected the monitoring and interpretation of the epidemic. We used the articles on laboratory procedures related to the epidemic and a description of the changes that were made to the notification criteria. We compared the output of a regional laboratory with notifications to the regional Public Health Service and the national register of infectious diseases. We compared the international notification criteria for acute Q-fever. Screening with ELISA IgM phase II and PCR was added to the diagnostic workflow. In the course of the epidemic, serology often revealed a positive IgG/IgM result although cases were not infected recently. With increasing background seroprevalence, the presence of IgM antibodies can only be suggestive for acute Q-fever and has to be confirmed either by seroconversion of IgG or a positive PCR result. Differences in sero-epidemiology make it unlikely that full harmonisation of notification criteria between countries is feasible.
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.