Redefining syndromic surveillance

被引:35
作者
Katz R. [1 ]
May L. [2 ]
Baker J. [1 ]
Test E. [1 ]
机构
[1] School of Public Health and Health Services, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20006, 2021 K Street
[2] Department of Emergency Medicine, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20037, 2150 Pennsylvania Ave.
关键词
Biosurveillance; Disease outbreaks; Epidemiology; Population surveillance; Syndrome; Syndromic surveillance;
D O I
10.1016/j.jegh.2011.06.003
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
With growing concerns about international spread of disease and expanding use of early disease detection surveillance methods, the field of syndromic surveillance has received increased attention over the last decade. The purpose of this article is to clarify the various meanings that have been assigned to the term syndromic surveillance and to propose a refined categorization of the characteristics of these systems. Existing literature and conference proceedings were examined on syndromic surveillance from 1998 to 2010, focusing on low- and middle-income settings. Based on the 36 unique definitions of syndromic surveillance found in the literature, five commonly accepted principles of syndromic surveillance systems were identified, as well as two fundamental categories: specific and non-specific disease detection. Ultimately, the proposed categorization of syndromic surveillance distinguishes between systems that focus on detecting defined syndromes or outcomes of interest and those that aim to uncover non-specific trends that suggest an outbreak may be occurring. By providing an accurate and comprehensive picture of this field's capabilities, and differentiating among system types, a unified understanding of the syndromic surveillance field can be developed, encouraging the adoption, investment in, and implementation of these systems in settings that need bolstered surveillance capacity, particularly low- and middle-income countries. © 2011 Ministry of Health, Saudi Arabia.
引用
收藏
页码:21 / 31
页数:10
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]  
Revision of the International Health Regulations: progress report, February 2001, Wkly Epidemiol Rec, 76, 8, pp. 57-64, (2001)
[2]  
Cooper D., van Aston L.
[3]  
Sosin D.M., DeThomasis J., Evaluation challenges for syndromic surveillance-making incremental progress, MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 53, SUPPL., pp. 125-129, (2004)
[4]  
Buehler J.W., Sonricker A., Paladini M., Soper P., Mostashari F., Syndromic surveillance practice in the United States: findings from a survey of state, territorial, and selected local health departments, Adv Dis Surv, 6, 3, pp. 1-20, (2008)
[5]  
Chretien J.P., Happel Lewis S., Electronic public health surveillance in developing settings: meeting summary, BMC Proc, 2, SUPPL. 3, (2008)
[6]  
Chretien J.P., Burkom H.S., Sedyaningsih E.R., Larasati R., Lescano A.G., Mundaca C.C., Et al., Syndromic Surveillance: adapting innovations to developing settings, PLoS Med, 5, 3, (2008)
[7]  
May L., Chretien J.P., Pavlin J.A., Beyond traditional surveillance: applying syndromic surveillance to developing settings-opportunities and challenges, BMC Public Health, 9, 242, (2009)
[8]  
Buehler J.W., Berkelman R.L., Hartley D.M., Peters C.J., Syndromic surveillance and bioterrorism-related epidemics, Emerg Infect Dis, 9, 10, pp. 1197-1204, (2003)
[9]  
Fricker R.D.J., Hegler B.L., Dunfee D.A., Comparing syndromic surveillance detection methods: EARS' versus a CUSUM-based methodology, Stat Med, 27, pp. 3407-3429, (2008)
[10]  
Stoto M.A., Schonlau M., Mariano L.T., Syndromic surveillance: is it worth the effort?, Chance, 17, pp. 19-24, (2004)