Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 399

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access
Gibbons, Cheryl L, Mangen, Marie-Josée J, Plass, Dietrich, Havelaar, Arie H, Brooke, Russell John, Kramarz, Piotr, Peterson, Karen L, Stuurman, Anke L, Cassini, Alessandro, Fèvre, Eric M, Kretzschmar, Mirjam EE·2014·BMC Public Health

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2458-14-147

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 399

Metadata

Authors
Gibbons, C. L., Mangen, M.-J. J., Plass, D., Havelaar, A. H., Brooke, R. J., Kramarz, P., Peterson, K. L., Stuurman, A. L., Cassini, A., Fèvre, E. M., & Kretzschmar, M. E.
Venue
BMC Public Health
Published
2014-02-11
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
147-147
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2063584357
Cited by
399
References
11
FWCI
24.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring underreporting and under-ascertainment in infectious disease datasets: a comparison of methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2458-14-147
The paper
Gibbons, C. L., Mangen, M.-J. J., Plass, D., Havelaar, A. H., Brooke, R. J., Kramarz, P., Peterson, K. L., Stuurman, A. L., Cassini, A., Fèvre, E. M., & Kretzschmar, M. E. (2014). Measuring underreporting and under-ascertainment in infectious disease datasets: a comparison of methods. BMC Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-147

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.