Measuring underreporting and under-ascertainment in infectious disease datasets: a comparison of methods

Gibbons CL, Mangen M-JJ, Plaß D, et al. Measuring underreporting and under-ascertainment in infectious disease datasets: a comparison of methods. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1): 147.Background: Efficient and reliable surveillance and notification systems are vital for monitoring public health and disease outbreaks. However, most surveillance and notification systems are affected by a degree of underestimation (UE) and therefore uncertainty surrounds the 'true' incidence of disease affecting morbidity and mortality rates. Surveillance systems fail to capture cases at two distinct levels of the surveillance pyramid: from the community since not all cases seek healthcare (under-ascertainment), and at the healthcare-level, representing a failure to adequately report symptomatic cases that have sought medical advice (underreporting). There are several methods to estimate the extent of under-ascertainment and underreporting. Methods: Within the context of the ECDC-funded Burden of Communicable Diseases in Europe (BCoDE)-project, an extensive literature review was conducted to identify studies that estimate ascertainment or reporting rates for salmonellosis and campylobacteriosis in European Union Member States (MS) plus European Free Trade Area (EFTA) countries Iceland, Norway and Switzerland and four other OECD countries (USA, Canada, Australia and Japan). Multiplication factors (MFs), a measure of the magnitude of underestimation, were taken directly from the literature or derived (where the proportion of underestimated, under-ascertained, or underreported cases was known) and compared for the two pathogens. Results: MFs varied between and within diseases and countries, representing a need to carefully select the most appropriate MFs and methods for calculating them. The most appropriate MFs are often disease-,country-, age-, and sex-specific. Conclusions: When routine data are used to make decisions on resource allocation or to estimate epidemiological parameters in populations, it becomes important to understand when, where and to what extent these data represent the true picture of disease, and in some instances (such as priority setting) it is necessary to adjust for underestimation. MFs can be used to adjust notification and surveillance data to provide more realistic estimates of incidence

Meeting the International Health Regulations (2005) surveillance core capacity requirements at the subnational level in Europe: the added value of syndromic surveillance

BACKGROUND: The revised World Health Organization's International Health Regulations (2005) request a timely and all-hazard approach towards surveillance, especially at the subnational level. We discuss three questions of syndromic surveillance application in the European context for assessing public health emergencies of international concern: (i) can syndromic surveillance support countries, especially the subnational level, to meet the International Health Regulations (2005) core surveillance capacity requirements, (ii) are European syndromic surveillance systems comparable to enable cross-border surveillance, and (iii) at which administrative level should syndromic surveillance best be applied? DISCUSSION: Despite the ongoing criticism on the usefulness of syndromic surveillance which is related to its clinically nonspecific output, we demonstrate that it was a suitable supplement for timely assessment of the impact of three different public health emergencies affecting Europe. Subnational syndromic surveillance analysis in some cases proved to be of advantage for detecting an event earlier compared to national level analysis. However, in many cases, syndromic surveillance did not detect local events with only a small number of cases. The European Commission envisions comparability of surveillance output to enable cross-border surveillance. Evaluated against European infectious disease case definitions, syndromic surveillance can contribute to identify cases that might fulfil the clinical case definition but the approach is too unspecific to comply to complete clinical definitions. Syndromic surveillance results still seem feasible for comparable cross-border surveillance as similarly defined syndromes are analysed. We suggest a new model of implementing syndromic surveillance at the subnational level. In this model, syndromic surveillance systems are fine-tuned to their local context and integrated into the existing subnational surveillance and reporting structure. By enhancing population coverage, events covering several jurisdictions can be identified at higher levels. However, the setup of decentralised and locally adjusted syndromic surveillance systems is more complex compared to the setup of one national or local system. SUMMARY: We conclude that syndromic surveillance if implemented with large population coverage at the subnational level can help detect and assess the local and regional effect of different types of public health emergencies in a timely manner as required by the International Health Regulations (2005)

Evaluation of underreporting of salmonellosis and shigellosis hospitalised cases in Greece, 2011: results of a capture-recapture study and a hospital registry review

Background: Salmonellosis and shigellosis are mandatorily notifiable diseases in Greece. Underreporting of both diseases has been postulated but there has not been any national study to quantify it. The objective of this study was to: a) estimate underreporting of hospitalised cases at public Greek hospitals in 2011 with a capture-recapture (C-RC) study, b) evaluate the accuracy of this estimation, c) investigate the possible impact of specific factors on notification rates, and d) estimate community incidence of both diseases. Methods: The mandatory notification system database and the database of the National Reference Laboratory for Salmonella and Shigella (NRLSS) were used in the C-RC study. The estimated total number of cases was compared with the actual number found by using the hospital records of the microbiological laboratories. Underreporting was also estimated by patients' age-group, sex, type of hospital, region and month of notification. Assessment of the community incidence was based on the extrapolation of the hospitalisation rate of the diseases in Europe. Results: The estimated underreporting of salmonellosis and shigellosis cases through the C-RC study was 47.7% and 52.0%, respectively. The reporting rate of salmonellosis significantly varied between the thirteen regions of the country from 8.3% to 95.6% (median: 28.4%). Age and sex were not related to the probability of reporting. The notification rate did not significantly differ between urban and rural areas, however, large university hospitals had a higher underreporting rate than district hospitals (p-value < 0.001). The actual underreporting, based on the hospital records review, was close to the estimated via the C-RC study; 52.8% for salmonellosis and 58.4% for shigellosis. The predicted community incidence of salmonellosis ranged from 312 to 936 and of shigellosis from 35 to 104 cases per 100,000 population. Conclusions: Underreporting was higher than that reported by other countries and factors associated with underreporting should be further explored. C-RC analysis seems to be a useful tool for the assessment of the underreporting of hospitalised cases. National data on underreporting and under-ascertainment rate are needed for assessing the accuracy of the estimation of the community burden of the diseases