Volume 30, Number 11—November 2024
Letter
Estimating Underdetection of Foodborne Disease Outbreaks
To the Editor: In the February issue, Ford et al. used the power law to estimate underdetection of foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States (1). Two of their main conclusions are entirely reasonable: small outbreaks are more likely to go undetected than large outbreaks, and the use of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) has improved the detection of small outbreaks caused by pathogens for which WGS is used. However, their conclusion on the usefulness of the power law itself needs further consideration.
Ford et al. analyzed the size of all foodborne outbreaks reported to the national Foodborne Disease Outbreak Surveillance System during 1998–2019. They defined outbreak size as the number of laboratory-confirmed cases. However, laboratory-confirmed cases are only good estimators for the size of outbreaks detected through pathogen-specific surveillance, such as for Salmonella, where outbreak detection follows the accumulation of confirmed cases. For outbreaks associated with events or establishments, identification might rely on reports from consumers, many of whom do not seek healthcare; thus, stool specimens might only be collected from a few cases to confirm the etiology. Consumer complaints are the primary means for identifying foodborne outbreaks caused by norovirus. The Council to Improve Foodborne Outbreak Response recommends collecting clinical specimens from >5 members from the ill group in such settings (2). Thus, the number of confirmed cases in an outbreak is dependent on how the outbreak is detected. Outbreaks detected by complaint generally have few confirmed cases, even though they can involve large numbers of illnesses.
To provide a fair evaluation for the usefulness of the power law, it may be better to restrict analyses to outbreaks with common detection pathways. For outbreaks detected by pathogen-specific surveillance, counting confirmed cases seems appropriate. For outbreaks detected through consumer complaints, analyses should include all outbreak-associated illnesses.
, Melanie J. Firestone, Thuy N. Kim, Alexandra R. Edmundson, and Jeff B. Bender
References
- Ford L, Self JL, Wong KK, Hoekstra RM, Tauxe RV, Rose EB, et al. Power law for estimating underdetection of foodborne disease outbreaks, United States. Emerg Infect Dis. 2023;30:337–40. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Council to Improve Foodborne Outbreak Response. CIFOR guidelines for foodborne disease outbreak response, 3rd ed. Atlanta: Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists; 2019.
Original Publication Date: October 18, 2024
Related Links
Table of Contents – Volume 30, Number 11—November 2024
| EID Search Options |
|---|
Advanced Article Search – Search articles by author and/or keyword.
|
Articles by Country Search – Search articles by the topic country.
|
Article Type Search – Search articles by article type and issue.
|
Please use the form below to submit correspondence to the authors or contact them at the following address:
Craig Hedberg, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, MMC 807, 420 Delaware St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
Top