Further experience with the World Health Organization clinical case definition for AIDS in Uganda

AIDS ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 3 (7) ◽  
pp. 462-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred Wabwire-Mangen ◽  
David Serwadda ◽  
Neison K. Sewankambo ◽  
Roy D. Mugerwa ◽  
Clive J. Shiff ◽  
...  
AIDS ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 221-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Lepage ◽  
Philippe van de Perre ◽  
François Dabis ◽  
Daniel Commenges ◽  
James Orbinski ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (12) ◽  
pp. e1072-e1075 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roxana Mansour Ghanaie ◽  
Abdollah Karimi ◽  
Hossein Sadeghi ◽  
Abdolreza Esteghamti ◽  
Fateme Falah ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Serge ZIGABE ◽  
Etienne Kajibwami ◽  
Guy-Quesney Mateso ◽  
Benjamin Ntaligeza

Abstract COVID-19 started as a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan City, the Province of Hubei, China, in December 2019. It spread to many regions of China, outside of China and was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11th, 2020. Initially Africa had no case and now the continent is reporting an increasing number of confirmed cases in an exponential manner (1,2).


2003 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
A C de Benoist ◽  
D Boccia

In response to recent developments in southern China, Vietnam, and Hong Kong, the World Health Organization (WHO) has initiated global surveillance of cases with acute respiratory syndrome of unknown etiology (1) and provided the following case definition for hospital based surveillance:


Author(s):  
Damiano D'Ardes ◽  
Andrea Boccatonda ◽  
Ilaria Rossi ◽  
Michela Pontolillo ◽  
Giulio Cocco ◽  
...  

In December 2019, an outbreak of a new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was reported in Hubei province in China. The disease has since spread worldwide and the World Health Organization declared it a pandemic on 11 March 2020. We describe the case of a 65-year-old woman who clinically recovered from COVID-19 but showed persistent infection with SARS-CoV-2 for 51 days.


CJEM ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 5 (06) ◽  
pp. 384-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
W.N. Wong ◽  
Antonio C.H. Sek ◽  
Rick F.L. Lau ◽  
K.M. Li ◽  
Joe K.S. Leung ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Objectives: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of emergency department (ED) physicians with the World Health Organization (WHO) case definition in a large community-based SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) cohort. Methods: This was a cohort study of all patients from Hong Kong’s Amoy Garden complex who presented to an ED SARS screening clinic during a 2-month outbreak. Clinical findings and WHO case definition criteria were recorded, along with ED diagnoses. Final diagnoses were established independently based on relevant diagnostic tests performed after the ED visit. Emergency physician diagnostic accuracy was compared with that of the WHO SARS case definition. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios were calculated using standard formulae. Results: During the study period, 818 patients presented with SARS-like symptoms, including 205 confirmed SARS, 35 undetermined SARS and 578 non-SARS. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 91%, 96% and 94% for ED clinical diagnosis, versus 42%, 86% and 75% for the WHO case definition. Positive likelihood ratios (LR+) were 21.1 for physician judgement and 3.1 for the WHO criteria. Negative likelihood ratios (LR–) were 0.10 for physician judgement and 0.67 for the WHO criteria, indicating that clinician judgement was a much more powerful predictor than the WHO criteria. Conclusions: Physician clinical judgement was more accurate than the WHO case definition. Reliance on the WHO case definition as a SARS screening tool may lead to an unacceptable rate of misdiagnosis. The SARS case definition must be revised if it is to be used as a screening tool in emergency departments and primary care settings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document