ArticleEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2022
Pertussis surveillance results from a French general practitioner network, France, 2017 to 2020.
Article in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pertactin deficiency ofHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Pooled it
- Whooping cough hospitalisations among patients with chronic conditions: a retrospective analysis of incidence and costs, France, 2008 to 2020.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2026Article
- Epidemiological and spatial-temporal clustering characteristics of pertussis in Southwest China, 2013-2024.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionIn France, three complementary surveillance networks involving hospitals and paediatrician practices currently allow pertussis surveillance among infants (<1 year old) and children (1-12 years old). Data on incidences among adolescents (13-17 years old) and adults (≥ 18 years) are scarce. In 2017, a sentinel surveillance system called Sentinelles network, was implemented among general practitioners (GPs).AimThe purpose of Sentinelles network is to assess pertussis incidence, monitor the cases' age distribution and evaluate the impact of the country's vaccination policy. We present the results from the first 4 years of this surveillance.MethodsGPs of the French Sentinelles network reported weekly numbers of epidemiologically or laboratory-confirmed cases and their characteristics.ResultsA total of 132 cases were reported over 2017-2020. Estimated national incidence rates per 100,000 inhabitants were 17 (95% confidence interval (CI): 12-22) in 2017, 10 (95% CI: 6-14) in 2018, 15 (95% CI: 10-20) in 2019 and three (95% CI: 1-5) in 2020. The incidence rate was significantly lower in 2020 than in 2017-2019. Women were significantly more affected than men (83/132; 63% of women, p = 0.004); 66% (87/132) of cases were aged 15 years or over (median age: 31.5 years; range: 2 months-87 years). Among 37 vaccinated cases with data, 33 had received the recommended number of doses for their age.ConclusionsThese results concur with incidences reported in other European countries, and with studies showing that the incidences of several respiratory diseases decreased in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results also suggest a shift of morbidity towards older age groups, and a rapid waning of immunity after vaccination, justifying to continue this surveillance.
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.