ArticleEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2025
Evaluation of European severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) surveillance, 27 European countries, 2022/23.
Article in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Viral Pathogen-Specific Severe Acute Respiratory Infections in Hospitalised Adults in Europe: Epidemiological Findings from the id.DRIVE Study 2024-2025.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Article
- Changes in Epidemiological Characteristics in Children withJournal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundBetween 2020 and 2023, ECDC has supported 21 of 30 EU/EEA and six Western Balkan countries by enhancing severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) surveillance to monitor trends, detect unexpected events, evaluate public health interventions, identify risk factors and support vaccine effectiveness studies. Using diverse strategies, countries have implemented SARI surveillance and reported data at national/European levels.AimWe evaluated European-level SARI surveillance and provided recommendations to achieve objectives and improve key attribute performance.MethodsWe analysed 2022/23 surveillance data for completeness. We administered a questionnaire, targeting country-level representatives, to evaluate surveillance attributes (meeting objectives, usefulness, acceptability, timeliness, representativeness) and identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.ResultsThirteen countries (13/27) reported data at European level. Data showed good overall completeness but varied across countries and some variables need improvement (vaccination, sequencing). The questionnaire was completed by all 27 countries. Most countries (23/27) reported that the system effectively monitored trends and considered it useful and acceptable (25/27), but only 16 found it timely and 14 representative. Challenges included insufficient case-based data, data linkage issues and insufficient data completeness. Slow/inefficient manual data extraction affected timeliness, while insufficient geographical coverage affected representativeness. Multi-pathogen surveillance was identified as the main strength, heterogeneity of systems the main weakness, improvements of hospital information systems the main opportunity, and lack of sustainable funding the main threat.ConclusionsSARI surveillance was perceived as effective in monitoring trends, useful and acceptable. To achieve additional objectives and enhance timeliness and representativeness, we recommend improving data completeness, digitalisation/automation and geographical coverage.
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.