ArticleGMS hygiene and infection control2024
The new reporting obligation for Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) in Germany - a critical view.
Article in GMS hygiene and infection control, 2024. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In summer 2023, mandatory reporting of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) by name was introduced in Germany. The stated objectives were: to improve the database to prevent overburdening of the healthcare system, to implement targeted, early investigation and action by local health authorities to prevent further spread, and to assess vaccines after the expected approval of RSV vaccination. Methods: These objectives are examined against the background of data from mandatory reporting of RSV in the German federal state of Saxony, which has been required since 2002, and the data from the ARE (acute respiratory diseases) survey in Germany, considering the basic legal requirements and options of the Infection Protection Act, the requirements of the EU Commission for the collection of data on infectious diseases and the recommendations by experts of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the options for individual or general preventive measures by the health authorities and previous experience with the evaluation options of the reported data (especially regarding the effectiveness of vaccinations). Results and discussion: An extrapolation of the previously reported data from Saxony to the whole of Germany shows that over 100,000 reports per year must be expected (more than the reports of both rota and noroviruses together). Neither the requirements of the EU Commission nor the views of an expert group of the ECDC recommend mandatory RSV reporting. Mandatory reporting by name is also not appropriate from a legal perspective. A sentinel, which is also better suited to assessing vaccinations, would be more appropriate to avoid unnecessarily overburdening the health authorities. In addition, initial experience with wastewater sentinels for RSV has shown that they may be used to record local and regional RSV infections - albeit without information on the severity of the disease and thus the burden on the healthcare system.Against this background, mandatory reporting of RSV does not appear to be appropriate. Instead, the existing sentinels should be continued and further expanded, possibly supplemented by RSV wastewater monitoring.
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.