Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Completeness of notification of tuberculosis in The Netherlands: how reliable is record-linkage and capture–recapture analysis?

  • N. A. H. van HEST (a1) (a2), F. SMIT (a3) (a4), H. W. M. BAARS (a1), G. De VRIES (a1) (a2), P. E. W. De HAAS (a5), P. J. WESTENEND (a6), N. J. D. NAGELKERKE (a7) and J. H. RICHARDUS (a1) (a2)...

Summary

The aim of this study was to describe a systematic process of record-linkage, cross-validation, case-ascertainment and capture–recapture analysis to assess the quality of tuberculosis registers and to estimate the completeness of notification of incident tuberculosis cases in The Netherlands in 1998. After record-linkage and cross-validation 1499 tuberculosis patients were identified, of whom 1298 were notified, resulting in an observed under-notification of 13·4%. After adjustment for possible imperfect record-linkage and remaining false-positive hospital cases observed under-notification was 7·3%. Log-linear capture–recapture analysis initially estimated a total number of 2053 (95% CI 1871–2443) tuberculosis cases, resulting in an estimated under-notification of 36·8%. After adjustment for possible imperfect record-linkage and remaining false-positive hospital cases various capture–recapture models estimated under-notification at 13·6%. One of the reasons for the higher than expected estimated under-notification in a country with a well-organized system of tuberculosis control might be that some tuberculosis cases, e.g. extrapulmonary tuberculosis, are managed by clinicians less familiar with notification of infectious diseases. This study demonstrates the possible impact of violation of assumptions underlying capture–recapture analysis, especially the perfect record-linkage, perfect positive predictive value and absent three-way interaction assumptions.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Completeness of notification of tuberculosis in The Netherlands: how reliable is record-linkage and capture–recapture analysis?
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Completeness of notification of tuberculosis in The Netherlands: how reliable is record-linkage and capture–recapture analysis?
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Completeness of notification of tuberculosis in The Netherlands: how reliable is record-linkage and capture–recapture analysis?
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Author for correspondence: N. A. H. van Hest, M.D., M.Sc., Tuberculosis Control Section, Department of Infectious Disease Control, Rotterdam Public Health Service, PO Box 70032, 3000 LP Rotterdam, The Netherlands. (Email: vanhestr@ggd.rotterdam.nl)

References

Hide All
1. Dye, C, et al. Global burden of tuberculosis. Journal of the American Medical Association 1999; 282: 677686.
2. WHO. Global Tuberculosis Control: surveillance, planning, financing. WHO Report 2004. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2004.
3. Migliori, GB, et al. Validation of the surveillance system for new cases of tuberculosis in a province of northern Italy. Varese Tuberculosis Study Group. European Respiratory Journal 1995; 8: 12521258.
4. Mukerjee, AK. Ascertainment of non-respiratory tuberculosis in five boroughs by comparison of multiple data sources. Communicable Diseases and Public Health 1999; 2: 143144.
5. International Working Group for Disease Monitoring and Forecasting. Capture-recapture and multiple-record estimation. I: history and theoretical development. American Journal of Epidemiology 1995; 142: 10471058.
6. Fienberg, SE. The multiple-recapture census for closed populations and the 2k incomplete contingency table. Biometrika 1972; 59: 591603.
7. Bishop, YMM, Fienberg, SE, Holland, PW. Discrete Multivariate Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1975.
8. Hook, EB, Regal, RR. Capture-recapture methods in epidemiology: methods and limitations. Epidemiologic Reviews 1995; 17: 243263.
9. International Working Group for Disease Monitoring and Forecasting. Capture-recapture and multiple-record estimation. II: applications in human diseases. American Journal of Epidemiology 1995; 142: 10591068.
10. Van Hest, NA, Smit, F, Verhave, JP. Underreporting of malaria incidence in The Netherlands: results from a capture–recapture study. Epidemiology and Infection 2002; 129: 371377.
11. Sanghavi, DM, et al. Hyperendemic pulmonary tuberculosis in a Peruvian shantytown. American Journal of Epidemiology 1998; 148: 384389.
12. Tocque, K, et al. Capture recapture as a method of determining the completeness of tuberculosis notifications. Communicable Diseases and Public Health 2001; 4: 141143.
13. Mayoral, Cortes JM, et al. Incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis and HIV coinfection in the province of Seville, Spain, 1998. European Journal of Epidemiology 2001; 17: 737742.
14. Cailhol, J, et al. Incidence of tuberculous meningitis in France, 2000: a capture-recapture analysis. International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease 2005; 9: 803808.
15. Baussano, I, et al. Undetected burden of tuberculosis in a low-prevalence area. International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease 2006; 10: 415421.
16. Van Loenhout-Rooijackers, JH, et al. Pyrazinamide use as a method to estimate under-reporting of tuberculosis. International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease 2001; 5: 11561160.
17. Klein, S, Bosman, A. Completeness of malaria notification in the Netherlands 1995–2003 assessed by capture-recapture method. Eurosurveillance 2005; 10: 244246.
18. KNCV Tuberculosis Foundation. Index Tuberculosis 2001–2002 – Netherlands. The Hague: KNCV Tuberculosis Foundation, 2005.
19. Desenclos, JC, Hubert, B. Limitations to the universal use of capture-recapture methods. International Journal of Epidemiology 1994; 23: 13221323.
20. Brenner, H. Use and limitations of the capture-recapture method in disease monitoring with two dependent sources. Epidemiology 1995; 6: 4248.
21. Cormack, RM. Problems with using capture–recapture in epidemiology: an example of a measles epidemic. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1999; 52: 909914.
22. Papoz, L, Balkau, B, Lellouch, J. Case counting in epidemiology: limitations of methods based on multiple data sources. International Journal of Epidemiology 1999; 25: 474478.
23. Hook, EB, Regal, RR. Accuracy of alternative approaches to capture-recapture estimates of disease frequency: internal validity analysis of data from five sources. American Journal of Epidemiology 2000; 152: 771779.
24. Jarvis, SN, et al. Children are not goldfish-mark-recapture techniques and their application to injury data. Injury Prevention 2000; 6: 4650.
25. Tilling, K. Capture-recapture methods-useful or misleading? International Journal of Epidemiology 2001; 30: 1214.
26. Regal, RR, Hook, EB. Marginal versus conditional versus structural source models: a rationale for an alternative to log-linear methods for capture-recapture estimates. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17: 6974.
27. Wilson, RM, Collins, MF. Capture-recapture estimation with samples of size one using frequency data. Biometrika 1992; 79: 543553.
28. Hook, EB, Regal, RR. Validity of Bernouilli census, log-linear and truncated binomial models for correcting for underestimates in prevalence studies. American Journal of Epidemiology 1982; 116: 168176.
29. Smit, F, Reinking, D, Reijerse, M. Estimating the number of people eligible for health service use. Evaluation and Program Planning 2002; 25: 101105.
30. Smit, F, Toet, J, van der Heijden, P. Estimating the number of opiate users in Rotterdam using statistical models for incomplete count data. In: Hay, G, McKeganey, N, Birks, E eds. Final Report EMCDDA Project Methodological Pilot Study of Local Level Prevalence Estimates. Lisbon: EMCDDA, 1997, pp. 4766.
31. Bohning, D, et al. Estimating the number of drug users in Bangkok 2001: a capture-recapture approach using repeated entries in one list. European Journal of Epidemiology 2004; 19: 10751083.
32. Hay, G, Smit, F. Estimating the number of hard drug users from needle-exchange data. Addiction Research and Theory 2003; 11: 235243.
33. Chao, A. Estimating the population size for capture-recapture data with unequal catchability. Biometrics 1987; 43: 783791.
34. Chao, A. Estimating animal abundance with capture frequency data. Journal of Wildlife Management 1988; 52: 295300.
35. Chao, A. Estimating population size for sparse data in capture-recapture experiments. Biometrics 1989; 45: 427438.
36. Seber, GA, Huakau, JT, Simmons, D. Capture-recapture, epidemiology, and list mismatches: two lists. Biometrics 2000; 56: 12271232.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed