We have located links that may give you full text access.
EVALUATION STUDIES
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Is a rheumatic fever register the best surveillance tool to evaluate rheumatic fever control in the Auckland region?
New Zealand Medical Journal 2017 August 12
AIM: To determine the most accurate data source for acute rheumatic fever (ARF) epidemiology in the Auckland region.
METHOD: To assess coverage of the Auckland Regional Rheumatic Fever Register (ARRFR), (1998-2010) for children <15 years and resident in Auckland at the time of illness, register, hospitalisation and notification data were compared. A consistent definition was applied to determine definite and probable cases of ARF using clinical records. (www.heartfoundation.org.nz) RESULTS: Of 559 confirmed (definite and probable) RF cases <15 years (median age 10 years), seven were recurrences. Of 552 first episodes, the ARRFR identified 548 (99%), hospitalisations identified 501 (91%) including four not on the register, and public health notifications identified 384 (70%). Of hospitalisation cases, 33% (245/746), and of notifications 20% (94/478) did not meet the case definition and were therefore excluded. Between 1998-2010, eight cases, initially entered as ARF on the ARRFR, were later removed once further clinical detail was available.
CONCLUSION: The ARRFR produced the most accurate information surrounding new cases of ARF (for children <15 years) for the years 1998-2010 in Auckland. This was significantly more accurate than medical officer of health notification and hospitalisation data.
METHOD: To assess coverage of the Auckland Regional Rheumatic Fever Register (ARRFR), (1998-2010) for children <15 years and resident in Auckland at the time of illness, register, hospitalisation and notification data were compared. A consistent definition was applied to determine definite and probable cases of ARF using clinical records. (www.heartfoundation.org.nz) RESULTS: Of 559 confirmed (definite and probable) RF cases <15 years (median age 10 years), seven were recurrences. Of 552 first episodes, the ARRFR identified 548 (99%), hospitalisations identified 501 (91%) including four not on the register, and public health notifications identified 384 (70%). Of hospitalisation cases, 33% (245/746), and of notifications 20% (94/478) did not meet the case definition and were therefore excluded. Between 1998-2010, eight cases, initially entered as ARF on the ARRFR, were later removed once further clinical detail was available.
CONCLUSION: The ARRFR produced the most accurate information surrounding new cases of ARF (for children <15 years) for the years 1998-2010 in Auckland. This was significantly more accurate than medical officer of health notification and hospitalisation data.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app