Sensitivity of the Swedish statutory surveillance system for communicable diseases 1998–2002, assessed by the capture–recapture method

To assess the sensitivity of the Swedish surveillance system, four notifiable communicable diseases in Sweden were examined during 1998–2002 with the two-sources capture–recapture method, based on parallel clinical and laboratory notifications. The sensitivity (proportion of diagnosed diseases actually being notified) was highest for salmonellosis (99·9%), followed by meningococcal infection (98·7%), and tularaemia (98·5%). For penicillin-resistant pneumococci, introduced as a notifiable disease in 1996, the overall sensitivity was 93·4% – increasing from 86·5% in 1998 to 98·5% in 2002. The system benefited from parallel reporting, with a sensitivity of clinical and laboratory notifications alone (all diseases combined) of 91·6% and 95·9% respectively. The sensitivity of both clinical and laboratory notifications was markedly higher in counties using the national electronic reporting system, SmiNet. Thus, sensitivity was higher for diseases with a long tradition of reporting, and there is a run-in period after a new disease becomes notifiable.

[1]  Anna Jansson,et al.  Timeliness of case reporting in the Swedish statutory surveillance of communicable diseases 1998–2002 , 2004, Scandinavian journal of infectious diseases.

[2]  R. Whittaker,et al.  Could laboratory-based notification improve the control of foodborne illness in New Zealand? , 2002, The New Zealand medical journal.

[3]  S. Groseclose,et al.  Completeness of notifiable infectious disease reporting in the United States: an analytical literature review. , 2002, American journal of epidemiology.

[4]  H. Kelly,et al.  Using the two-source capture-recapture method to estimate the incidence of acute flaccid paralysis in Victoria, Australia. , 2002, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[5]  L. Lee,et al.  Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems: recommendations from the Guidelines Working Group. , 2001, MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports.

[6]  M. Ferson,et al.  Notification of infectious diseases by general practitioners: a quantitative and qualitative study , 2000, The Medical journal of Australia.

[7]  P. Effler,et al.  Statewide system of electronic notifiable disease reporting from clinical laboratories: comparing automated reporting with conventional methods. , 1999, JAMA.

[8]  C. Dalton,et al.  Timeliness of Salmonella notifications in South Australia , 1999, Australian and New Zealand journal of public health.

[9]  R. Reintjes,et al.  Assessing the sensitivity of STD surveillance in the Netherlands: an application of the capture–recapture method , 1999, Epidemiology and Infection.

[10]  M. Bellis,et al.  Whooping cough surveillance in the north west of England. , 1998, Communicable disease and public health.

[11]  D J Nanan,et al.  Capture-recapture: reconnaissance of a demographic technique in epidemiology. , 1997, Chronic diseases in Canada.

[12]  H Brenner,et al.  USE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE CAPTURE‐RECAPTURE METHOD IN DISEASE MONITORING WITH TWO DEPENDENT SOURCES , 1995, Epidemiology.

[13]  J. Desenclos,et al.  Limitations to the universal use of capture-recapture methods. , 1994, International journal of epidemiology.

[14]  T L Chorba,et al.  Mandatory reporting of infectious diseases by clinicians. , 1989, JAMA.