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

C.L. Gibbons, M.J.J. Mangen, D. Plass, A.H. Havelaar, R.J. Brooke, P. Kramarz, K. Peterson, A.L. Stuurman, A. Cassini, E.M. Fevre, x BCoDE consortium, M.E.E. Kretzschmar

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    Abstract

    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.
    Original languageUndefined/Unknown
    Number of pages17
    JournalBMC Public Health
    Volume14:147
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2014

    Keywords

    • Underestimation
    • Underreporting
    • Under-ascertainment
    • Surveillance
    • Infectious diseases

    Cite this