Reporting standards for outbreak data: A systematic review

Abstract

AbstractThe current landscape of data reporting for outbreaks is ad hoc and inconsistent. Public health authorities have discretion to determine when, where, how, and what outbreak data to report. This uneven information flow hampers response efforts by decreasing the accountability and transparency needed to build public trust in the public health response. We performed a systematic literature review using the PubMed, EMBASE, MedLine Plus, and Google Scholar databases to identify existing guidelines that address timing, methodology and content of outbreak reporting. Our search strategy produced 46 manuscripts for initial screening to determine eligibility, after which we performed a full-text review of those selected for comprehensive evaluation. We identified four manuscripts that discuss minimum standards and expectations for outbreak reports. Included manuscripts highlight the absence of and the consequent need for minimum standards for what information should be reported to the public during outbreaks. Together, they suggest that the ideal outbreak report should contain information on disease severity, epidemic size and geographic extent, daily and total case count, demographics, transmissibility, signs and symptoms, probable disease transmission and exposure pathways, countermeasure status, and sources of uncertainty. This systematic review of existing guidelines is part of a larger effort to develop consensus guidelines for the public reporting of outbreak data.