ArticleBMJ open2022
Estimation of the incidence of invasive meningococcal disease using a capture-recapture model based on two independent surveillance systems in Catalonia, Spain.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesInvasive meningococcal disease (IMD) is an urgent notifiable disease and its early notification is essential to prevent cases. The objective of the study was to assess the sensitivity of two independent surveillance systems and to estimate the incidence of IMD.
designWe used capture-recapture model based on two independent surveillance systems, the statutory disease reporting (SDR) system and the microbiological reporting system (MRS) of the Public Health Agency of Catalonia, between 2011 and 2015. The capture-recapture analysis and 95% CIs were calculated using the Chapman formula. Multivariate vector generalised linear model was performed for adjusted estimation. MEASURES: The variables collected were age, sex, year of report, size of municipality (<10 000 and ≥10 000), clinical form, death, serogroup, country of birth and type of reporting centre (private and public).
resultsThe sensitivity of the two combined surveillance systems was 88.5% (85.0-92.0). SDR had greater sensitivity than the MRS (67.9%; 62.7-73.1 vs 64.7%; 59.4-70.0). In 2014-2015, the sensitivity of both systems was higher (80.6%; 73.2-87.9 vs 73.4%; 65.2-81.6) than in 2011-2013 (59.3%; 52.6-66.0 vs 58.3%; 51.6-65.1). In private centres, the sensitivity was higher for SDR than for MRS (100%; 100-100 vs 4.8%; -4.4-13.9). The adjusted estimate of IMD cases was lower than that obtained using the Chapman formula (279; 266-296 vs 313; 295-330). The estimated adjusted incidence of IMD was 0.7/100 000 persons-year.
conclusionsThe sensitivity of enhanced surveillance through the combination of two complementary sources was higher than for the sources individually. Factors associated with under-reporting in different systems should be analysed to improve IMD 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.