ArticleEpidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil2023
Measles epidemiological surveillance system before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Pernambuco, Brazil, 2018-2022: a descriptive evaluation.
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 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.
- Evaluation of the measles surveillance system in Chereponi District, Ghana, 2019-2024.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Ten-year surveillance and epidemiological patterns of measles and rubella: A study in the Babol County.Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2025Article
- 20 years of the Health and Environmental Surveillance Secretariat: 19 years of hospital epidemiological surveillance.Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the measles epidemiological surveillance system, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Pernambuco, Brazil.
methodsThis was a descriptive evaluation of the quality (duplicity; completeness; consistency), timeliness and usefulness attributed, classified as excellent ≥ 90.0%, regular ≥ 70.0% and < 90.0%, and poor (< 70.0%). Data from the Notifiable Health Conditions Information System and Laboratory Environment Management System were used, before (03/11/2018-03/10/2020) and during (03/11/2020-03/10/2022) the pandemic.
results1,548 suspected measles cases were registered (1,469 before and 79 during the pandemic). In the two periods studied, there were 11 and 1 duplicate records, average completeness in filling out the variables was 99.2% and 95.7%, while average consistency was 96.7% and 97.5%, respectively. Timeliness (receipt of samples, 16.2% and 33.0%. Release of results, 1.3% and 1.3%) and usefulness (43.5% and 24.4%) were poor.
conclusionQuality was classified as excellent in the periods studied, timeliness and usefulness were classified as poor, signaling non-compliance with the purpose of the system. MAIN
resultsThe quality of data from the measles epidemiological surveillance system in Pernambuco was excellent, while its timeliness and usefulness were poor during both periods. IMPLICATIONS FOR SERVICES: The limited timeliness and, therefore, the low usefulness of the measles epidemiological surveillance system must be discussed in the three government spheres of health service management, with the aim of training the professionals involved, as well as monitoring and evaluating the system. PERSPECTIVES: Systematic monitoring and evaluation generates evidence that supports health service managers and workers in the timely identification of gaps that compromise the full fulfillment of the objectives proposed.
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.