{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,20]],"date-time":"2025-11-20T18:13:12Z","timestamp":1763662392019},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"Cambridge University Press (CUP)","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2000,6,1]],"date-time":"2000-06-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":959817600000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/terms"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Epidemiol. Infect."],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2000,6]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>Linking continuous community-based morbidity recording of influenza-like illness (ILI) with \nvirological sampling has consistently proved its value as one of the earliest indicators of \ncirculating influenza activity. The clinical morbidity recording in the Portuguese national \nsurveillance network, during a 7-year period, and the contribution of different diagnostic \ntechniques, including virus isolation, multiplex RT\u2013PCR, immunocapture enzyme linked \nimmunoassay (EIA) and complement fixation tests (CFTs) for the detection of influenza in \nsuch a community-based setting is described and evaluated in this study. There was good \ncorrelation between the increase of morbidity, total samples taken and the detection of \ninfluenza virus by all the methods although this was less evident for virus isolation and EIA \nthan for RT\u2013PCR or serology. From a total of 1685 throat swabs collected from cases of ILI, \n43\u00b76% were RT\u2013PCR positive, 17\u00b75% were positive by capture EIA and in 5% virus isolates \nwere made. The detection of influenza by RT\u2013PCR occurred earlier than by any other method \nand showed the best correlation with epidemic patterns of morbidity registration. We conclude \nthat in surveillance systems where virus culture is sub-optimal, RT\u2013PCR provides a rapid, \nsensitive, specific method for detecting influenza viruses from community-based sampling.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1017\/s0950268899003751","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2002,7,27]],"date-time":"2002-07-27T09:23:42Z","timestamp":1027761822000},"page":"515-522","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":18,"title":["Different diagnostic methods for detection of influenza epidemics"],"prefix":"10.1017","volume":"124","author":[{"given":"H.","family":"REBELO-de-ANDRADE","sequence":"first","affiliation":[]},{"given":"M. C.","family":"ZAMBON","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]}],"member":"56","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2000,6,1]]},"container-title":["Epidemiology and Infection"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/services\/aop-cambridge-core\/content\/view\/S0950268899003751","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2019,9,2]],"date-time":"2019-09-02T12:19:37Z","timestamp":1567426777000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/product\/identifier\/S0950268899003751\/type\/journal_article"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2000,6]]},"references-count":0,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2000,6]]}},"alternative-id":["S0950268899003751"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/s0950268899003751","relation":{},"ISSN":["0950-2688","1469-4409"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0950-2688","type":"print"},{"value":"1469-4409","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2000,6]]}}}