Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 18, Number 2—February 2012

Effect of Surveillance Method on Reported Characteristics of Lyme Disease, Connecticut, 1996–2007

Starr-Hope ErtelComments to Author , Randall S. Nelson, and Matthew L. Cartter
Author affiliations: Connecticut Department of Public Health, Hartford, Connecticut, USA

Main Article

Table 1

Number of Lyme disease reports, by status and surveillance method, Connecticut, 1996–2007*

Status PS AS ELS MLS Total
Case 12,185 8,666 1,949 10,657 33,457
Not a case 4,962 4,316 1,783 15,257 26,318
Lost to follow-up 2,203 58 7 17,853 20,121
Total† 19,350 13,040 3,739 43,767 79,896

*PS, passive physician surveillance 1996–2007; AS, active physician surveillance 1996–2007; ELS, enhanced laboratory surveillance 1996–1997; MLS, mandatory laboratory surveillance 1998–2002 and 2007.
†Positive predictive values: PS, 63.0; AS, 66.5; ELS, 52.1; MLS, 24.3; total, 41.9.

Main Article

Page created: January 19, 2012
Page updated: January 19, 2012
Page reviewed: January 19, 2012
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.