ReviewReviews in medical virology2026
A Cross-Country Evaluation of Respiratory Syncytial Virus and Human Metapneumovirus Surveillance Systems: Identifying Gaps and Best Practices for Improved Disease Monitoring.
Review in Reviews in medical virology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and human metapneumovirus (hMPV) are seasonal respiratory viruses that can cause severe outcomes, particularly in older adults; however, their burden remains under-captured. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends expanding surveillance over pathogens, such as RSV and hMPV, through the Mosaic Respiratory Surveillance Framework. Although COVID-19 accelerated RSV surveillance, similar advancements for hMPV are lacking. This study evaluated and compared RSV and hMPV surveillance across multiple countries. A comparative qualitative analysis of RSV and hMPV surveillance was conducted in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States using a framework based on the WHO guidance. Surveillance systems were mapped across seven modules: non-medically attended community, virological, community, outbreak, primary care, hospital, and mortality surveillance. Each was assessed using five criteria: granularity, timing, representativeness, sampling strategy, and communication. Sources included public health institution webpages, surveillance subsystems, and peer-reviewed publications. Most countries have dedicated RSV surveillance frameworks, with the United States and Spain having the most comprehensive systems. Key areas for potential improvement included limited adult-centric data and severe outcome reporting. No country had robust surveillance for hMPV (Germany reported hMPV-specific hospital data, whereas France, Germany, and the United Kingdom published sentinel positivity rates), and detection was mainly through influenza or COVID-19 virological surveillance. The absence of hMPV reporting from active sentinel surveillance, year-round monitoring, demographic and severity data, and restricted public information dissemination are common limitations. Significant limitations persist in RSV and particularly hMPV surveillance, highlighting the need for more robust, comprehensive systems.
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.