Skip to main content
The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners logoLink to The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners
. 1974 Aug;24(145):552–556.

A retrospective survey of the complications of mumps

the Association for the Study of Infectious Disease
PMCID: PMC2157395  PMID: 4465449

Abstract

A retrospective survey is described of 2,482 cases of mumps (1,513 males and 969 females) treated in a number of infectious disease units in England and Wales. About half the patients were under 15 years of age. Complications were recorded in 42 per cent of all cases (53 per cent of males and 25 per cent of females), the commonest complication in both sexes being involvement of the central nervous system. Three patients died, but in two of these there was serious underlying illness unrelated to mumps and in the remaining case a review of the records suggests, in retrospect, some doubt about the diagnosis of mumps. Deafness due to involvement of the eighth cranial nerve was the only permanent sequel recorded and occurred in five patients.

From the results of this survey it is concluded that there is little need for general vaccination against mumps, although there might be an indication for vaccinating certain groups of the male population.

Full text

PDF
553

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Azimi P. H., Cramblett H. G., Haynes R. E. Mumps meningoencephalitis in children. JAMA. 1969 Jan 20;207(3):509–512. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Dastur F. Mumps and acute tubular necrosis. Practitioner. 1968 Nov;201(205):796–797. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. GIBBONS J. L., MILLER H. G., STANTON J. B. Para-infectious encephalomyelitis and related syndromes; a critical review of the neurological complications of certain specific fevers. Q J Med. 1956 Oct;25(100):427–505. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hilleman M. R., Weibel R. E., Buynak E. B., Stokes J., Jr, Whitman J. E., Jr Live attenuated mumps-virus vaccine. IV. Protective efficacy as measured in a field evaluation. N Engl J Med. 1967 Feb 2;276(5):252–258. doi: 10.1056/NEJM196702022760502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. McKendrick G. D., Nishtar T. Mumps orchitis and sterility. Public Health. 1966 Sep;80(6):277–278. doi: 10.1016/s0033-3506(66)80005-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Penttinen K., Cantell K., Somer P., Poikolainen A. Mumps vaccination in the Finnish defense forces. Am J Epidemiol. 1968 Sep;88(2):234–244. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a120882. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Radl H. Die Bedeutung der Mumpsmeningitis. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1969 Aug 8;94(32):1599–1603. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1110308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Witte J. J., Karchmer A. W. Surveillance of mumps in the United States as background for use of vaccine. Public Health Rep. 1968 Feb;83(2):5–100. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES