ArticlePloS one2023
Evaluation of the rubella surveillance system in South Africa, 2016-2018: A cross-sectional study.
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.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ten-year surveillance and epidemiological patterns of measles and rubella: A study in the Babol County.Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2025Article
- Performance evaluation on vaccination rates monitoring report system of Shenzhen, China.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the mpox surveillance system in Cameroon from 2018 to 2022: a laboratory cross-sectional study.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.