Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37352228›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Evaluation of the rubella surveillance system in South Africa, 2016-2018: A cross-sectional study.

Fhatuwani Gavhi, Alex De Voux, Lazarus Kuonza, Nkengafac Villyen Motaze

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fhatuwani GavhiNational Institute for Communicable Diseases, A Division of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-1563-2273
Alex De VouxDivision of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-9182-5598
Lazarus KuonzaNational Institute for Communicable Diseases, A Division of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa.
Nkengafac Villyen MotazeNational Institute for Communicable Diseases, A Division of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa.
National Health Laboratory Service · ZAUniversity of Cape Town · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRubella is a leading vaccine-preventable cause of birth defects. We conducted this study to evaluate the rubella surveillance system in South Africa from 2016 to 2018. The rubella surveillance system had not been evaluated since its inception; therefore, a formal evaluation is necessary to assess key attributes and to ascertain the extent to which the system achieves its objectives.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study to assess the usefulness, simplicity, positive predictive value, timeliness, and data quality of the rubella surveillance system from 2016 to 2018. We reviewed retrospective rubella surveillance data and conducted a survey with key stakeholders of the system. We compiled a summary report from the survey and calculated the annualized detection rate of rubella and non-rubella febrile rash, positive predictive value, the proportion of complete records, and timeliness between the surveillance steps. We compared our results with recommended performance indicators from the 2015 revised World Health Organization African regional guidelines for measles and rubella surveillance.

resultsThe rubella surveillance system was useful but weak in terms of simplicity. The annualized detection rate of rubella febrile rash was 1.5 per 100,000 populations in 2016, 4.4 in 2017, and 2.1 in 2018. The positive predictive value was 29.1% in 2016, 40.9% in 2017, and 32.9% in 2018. The system did not meet the timeliness goal in the health facility component but met this goal in the laboratory component. The system had poor data quality, particularly in the health facility component.

conclusionsThe rubella surveillance system was useful, although it was not simple to use and had low PPV, poor timeliness, and poor data quality. Efforts should be made to improve the system's simplicity, PPV, timeliness, and data quality at the facility level.

Indexed as

MeaslesRubellaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansRetrospective StudiesSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID37352228
PMCPMC10289429
OpenAlexW4381839707

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.