About: OBJECTIVE: The characteristics of patients with a suspected SARS hospitalized in a Paris hospital were studied to analyze the hypothetic differences between epidemiologic and clinical teams in the management of an epidemic emerging disease, and to gather experience for the management of the next outbreak. STUDY DESIGN: All 90 patients hospitalized between March 16 and April 30, 2003, were included. Epidemiological and clinical data were shared with the French National Institute for Health. Cases were classified according to both the official definition (“possible”, “probable”, “excluded”) and a local one, adapted from the official definition but including an additional level of suspicion (“equivocal”), intermediate between “possible” and “excluded”. RESULTS: The initial assessment was different in 39% of the cases (n = 35), according to epidemiological (n = 24) or clinical (n = 11) elements. The final assessment diverged in 54% of the cases (n = 47). All patients were officially considered as %22excluded%22 for epidemiologists, while 47 remained as %22possible%22 or %22equivocal%22 cases of SARS according to the clinicians. CONCLUSION: The risk assessment was different in almost 40% of the cases, with no impact on epidemic diffusion or hospital-borne exposure as no probable case of SARS was diagnosed among these patients or their households. The confrontation of these different but complementary points of view will thus enrich the interdisciplinary management of eventual future outbreaks.   Goto Sponge  NotDistinct  Permalink

An Entity of Type : fabio:Abstract, within Data Space : wasabi.inria.fr associated with source document(s)

AttributesValues
type
value
  • OBJECTIVE: The characteristics of patients with a suspected SARS hospitalized in a Paris hospital were studied to analyze the hypothetic differences between epidemiologic and clinical teams in the management of an epidemic emerging disease, and to gather experience for the management of the next outbreak. STUDY DESIGN: All 90 patients hospitalized between March 16 and April 30, 2003, were included. Epidemiological and clinical data were shared with the French National Institute for Health. Cases were classified according to both the official definition (“possible”, “probable”, “excluded”) and a local one, adapted from the official definition but including an additional level of suspicion (“equivocal”), intermediate between “possible” and “excluded”. RESULTS: The initial assessment was different in 39% of the cases (n = 35), according to epidemiological (n = 24) or clinical (n = 11) elements. The final assessment diverged in 54% of the cases (n = 47). All patients were officially considered as %22excluded%22 for epidemiologists, while 47 remained as %22possible%22 or %22equivocal%22 cases of SARS according to the clinicians. CONCLUSION: The risk assessment was different in almost 40% of the cases, with no impact on epidemic diffusion or hospital-borne exposure as no probable case of SARS was diagnosed among these patients or their households. The confrontation of these different but complementary points of view will thus enrich the interdisciplinary management of eventual future outbreaks.
Subject
  • Epidemiology
  • Infectious diseases
  • Viral respiratory tract infections
  • COVID-19
  • Zoonotic bacterial diseases
  • Bat virome
part of
is abstract of
is hasSource of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.13.91 as of Mar 24 2020


Alternative Linked Data Documents: Sponger | ODE     Content Formats:       RDF       ODATA       Microdata      About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data]
OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3229 as of Jul 10 2020, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Single-Server Edition (94 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software