Completeness of measles case reporting: review of estimates for the United States.

Measles surveillance is complex: the patient must seek health care, the diagnosis must be recognized by the physician, and the case must be reported to health departments. The portion of total (incident) measles cases that is reported to health departments is termed "completeness of reporting." Few studies describe this measure of the quality of surveillance in the United States; these studies use different methods, but they are all limited because the actual number of measles cases needed to derive completeness of reporting could not be determined. Estimates of completeness of reporting from the 1980s and 1990s vary widely, from 3% to 58%. One study suggests that 85% of patients with measles sought health care, the proportion of compatible illnesses for which measles was considered varied from 13% to 75%, and the proportion of suspected cases that were reported varied from 22% to 67%. Few cases were laboratory-confirmed, but all were reported. Surveillance in the United States is responsive, and its sensitivity likely increases when measles is circulating. Continued efforts to reinforce the clinical recognition and reporting of measles cases are warranted.

[1]  M. McCauley,et al.  Has surveillance been adequate to detect endemic measles in the United States? , 2004, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[2]  M. Wharton,et al.  Epidemiology of measles in the United States, 1997-2001. , 2004, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[3]  R. Vogt,et al.  Comparison of an active and passive surveillance system of primary care providers for hepatitis, measles, rubella, and salmonellosis in Vermont. , 1983, American journal of public health.

[4]  M. Wharton,et al.  Lessons learned from establishing and evaluating indicators of the quality of measles surveillance in the United States, 1996-1998. , 2004, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[5]  P. Frederick,et al.  Measles reporting completeness during a community-wide epidemic in inner-city Los Angeles. , 1995, Public health reports.

[6]  L. Brammer,et al.  Influenza surveillance--United States, 1992-93 and 1993-94. , 1997, MMWR. CDC surveillance summaries : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. CDC surveillance summaries.

[7]  R. Haward.  Scale of undernotification of infectious diseases by general practitioners. , 1973, Lancet.

[8]  W. Rush,et al.  Syndromic surveillance for measleslike illnesses in a managed care setting. , 2004, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[9]  E. Sydenstricker.  A Study of Illness in a General Population Group. Hagerstown Morbidity Studies No. 1: the Method of Study and General Results. , 1926 .

[10]  J. Pfeiffer,et al.  Surveillance of communicable diseases in child day care settings. , 1986, Reviews of infectious diseases.

[11]  John W. Glasser,et al.  Vaccine Safety Datalink project: a new tool for improving vaccine safety monitoring in the United States. The Vaccine Safety Datalink Team. , 1997, Pediatrics.

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

[13]  D. Rose,et al.  The underreporting of disease and physicians' knowledge of reporting requirements. , 1984, Public health reports.

[14]  L. Mascola,et al.  Varicella disease after introduction of varicella vaccine in the United States, 1995-2000. , 2002, JAMA.

[15]  D D Lenaway,et al.  Evaluation of a school-based influenza surveillance system. , 1995, Public health reports.

[16]  A. W. Hedrich.  THE CORRECTED AVERAGE ATTACK RATE FROM MEASLES AMONG CITY CHILDREN , 1930 .

[17]  D Koo,et al.  Mandatory reporting of diseases and conditions by health care professionals and laboratories. , 1999, JAMA.

[18]  S B Thacker,et al.  Public health surveillance in the United States. , 1988, Epidemiologic reviews.

[19]  R. Vogt,et al.  The surveillance of communicable disease in Vermont: who reports? , 1991, Public health reports.

[20]  R. W. Carr,et al.  Measles hospitalizations, United States, 1977-84: comparison with national surveillance data. , 1987, American journal of public health.

[21]  Sydenstricker.  A Study of Illness in a General Population Group , 1927 .

[22]  L. Lobes,et al.  Urban measles in the vaccine era: a clinical, epidemiologic, and serologic study. , 1972, The Journal of pediatrics.

[23]  G. Istre,et al.  Is passive surveillance always insensitive? An evaluation of shigellosis surveillance in Oklahoma. , 1988, American journal of epidemiology.

[24]  L. Mascola,et al.  The reporting efficiency of measles by hospitals in Los Angeles County, 1986 and 1989. , 1994, American journal of public health.

[25]  S. Thacker,et al.  The surveillance of infectious diseases. , 1983, JAMA.

[26]  P. Strebel,et al.  Reporting efficiency during a measles outbreak in New York City, 1991. , 1993, American journal of public health.

[27]  M. Papania,et al.  Measles surveillance in the United States: an overview. , 2004, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[28]  M. Papania,et al.  Can a minimum rate of investigation of measleslike illnesses serve as a standard for evaluating measles surveillance? , 2004, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[29]  A. Hinman,et al.  Current features of measles in the United States: feasibility of measles elimination. , 1980, Epidemiologic reviews.

[30]  J. Witte,et al.  The epidemiologic rationale for the failure to eradicate measles in the United States. , 1971, American journal of public health.

[31]  L. Burmeister,et al.  A comparison of national infection and immunization estimates for measles and rubella. , 1978, American journal of public health.

[32]  A. Langmuir.  Medical importance of measles. , 1962, American journal of diseases of children.