Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37162110›Full record

ArticleEpidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil2023

Evaluation of completeness, consistency and non-duplication of leprosy notification data on the Notifiable Health Conditions Information System, João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil: a descriptive study, 2001-2019.

Micheline da Silveira Mendes, André Luiz Sá de Oliveira, Haiana Charifker Schindler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Health Information Systems: how much progress are we making?Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 2023
    Article
  6. 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

3 authors.

Micheline da Silveira MendesFundação Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Departamento de Saúde Coletiva, Recife, PE, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-7542-0702
André Luiz Sá de OliveiraFundação Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Núcleo de Estatística e Geoprocessamento, Recife, PE, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2483-550X
Haiana Charifker SchindlerFundação Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Departamento de Imunologia, Recife, PE, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-3863-4845

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveto analyze the completeness, consistency and non-duplication of leprosy notification data in João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil, 2001-2019.

methodsthis was a descriptive study, conducted with data from the Notifiable Health Conditions Information System, which checked for "duplication" (acceptable: < 5%), "completeness" (excellent = incompleteness ≤ 5%) and "consistency" (excellent: ≥ 90.0%), based on the proportion of complete and consistent fields.

resultsthe sample consisted of 2,410 notifications. Duplication was acceptable (0.3%). The completeness of the "bacilloscopy", "affected nerves", "examined contacts" and "reactive episode" fields was very poor (more than 50% incomplete). Consistency between the "operational classification" and "initial treatment regimen" fields was excellent (99.6%), while consistency between "operational classification" and "clinical form" was low (50.7%).

conclusionalthough duplication was acceptable, poor completeness of diagnosis and follow-up fields hinders epidemiological analysis, recognition of the status of the disease and adoption of measures to control it.

Indexed as

Information SystemsLeprosyBrazilHumans

Identifiers

PMID37162110
PMCPMC10168688

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.