• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Automated influenza-like illness reporting-an efficient adjunct to traditional sentinel surveillance

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Public Health Rep. 2014 Jan;129(1):55-63.
Automated influenza-like illness reporting-an efficient adjunct to traditional sentinel surveillance.
Yih WK1, Cocoros NM2, Crockett M2, Klompas M1, Kruskal BA3, Kulldorff M1, Lazarus R1, Madoff LC4, Morrison MJ2, Smole S5, Platt R1.
Author information
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:

We compared an electronic health record-based influenza-like illness (ILI) surveillance system with manual sentinel surveillance and virologic data to evaluate the utility of the automated system for routine ILI surveillance.
METHODS:

We obtained weekly aggregate ILI reports from the Electronic medical record Support for Public Health (ESP) disease-detection and reporting system, which used an automated algorithm to identify ILI visits among a patient population of about 700,000 in Eastern Massachusetts. The percentage of total visits for ILI ("percent ILI") in ESP, percent ILI in the Massachusetts Department of Public Health's sentinel surveillance system, and percentage of laboratory specimens submitted to participating Massachusetts laboratories that tested positive for influenza were compared for the period October 2007-September 2011. We calculated Spearman's correlation coefficients and compared ESP and sentinel surveillance systems qualitatively, in terms of simplicity, flexibility, data quality, acceptability, timeliness, and usefulness.
RESULTS:

ESP and sentinel surveillance percent ILI always peaked within one week of each other. There was 80% correlation between the two and 71%-73% correlation with laboratory data. Sentinel surveillance percent ILI was higher than ESP percent ILI during influenza seasons. The amplitude of variation in ESP percent ILI was greatest for 5- to 49-year-olds and typically peaked for the 5- to 24-year-old age group before the others.
CONCLUSIONS:

The ESP system produces percent ILI data of similar quality to sentinel surveillance and offers the advantages of shifting disease reporting burden from clinicians to information systems, allowing tracking of disease by age group, facilitating efficient surveillance for very large populations, and producing consistent and timely reports.

PMID:
24381360
[PubMed - in process]
PMCID:
PMC3863004
[Available on 2015/1/1]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24381360
 
Back
Top Bottom