You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Mumps and Rubella: A Year of Enhanced Surveillance and Laboratory Testing
R. J. Guy, R. M. Andrews, H. A. Kelly, J. A. Leydon, M. A. Riddell, S. B. Lambert and M. G. Catton
Epidemiology and Infection
Vol. 132, No. 3 (Jun., 2004), pp. 391-398
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3865428
Page Count: 8
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Rubella, Mumps, Vaccination, Surveillance, Rubella virus, Measles, Viruses, Mumps virus, Epidemiology, Parvovirus
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
In Victoria (Australia) surveillance for mumps and rubella has historically been passive, with most notified cases clinically diagnosed. In July 2001, the Victorian Department of Human Services implemented an enhanced surveillance system focusing on improved laboratory testing. We tested 85% of notifications and only 9% of all mumps and 27% of rubella notifications were laboratory confirmed. While most notified cases were children who had been clinically diagnosed, we found most laboratory-confirmed cases were in adults. The positive predictive value of the clinical case definition was low: mumps (10%); rubella (22%). These results highlight the value of laboratory confirmation of the diagnosis when mumps and rubella are rare, failure to do so is likely to overestimate disease incidence.
Epidemiology and Infection © 2004 Cambridge University Press