Skip to main content
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report logoLink to Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
. 2013 Sep 13;62(36):747–751.

Comparison of Provisional with Final Notifiable Disease Case Counts — National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, 2009

Nelson Adekoya 1,, Henry Roberts 2
PMCID: PMC4585575  PMID: 24025757

States report notifiable disease cases to CDC through the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS). This allows CDC to assist with public health action and monitor infectious diseases across jurisdictional boundaries nationwide. The Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) is used to disseminate these data on infectious disease incidence. The extent to which the weekly notifiable conditions are overreported or underreported can affect public health understanding of changes in the burden, distribution, and trends in disease, which is essential for control of communicable diseases (1). NNDSS encourages state health departments to notify CDC of a case when initially reported. These cases are included in the weekly provisional counts. The status of reported cases can change after further investigation by the states, resulting in differences between provisional and final counts. Increased knowledge of these differences can help in guiding the use of information from NNDSS. To quantify the extent to which final counts differ from provisional counts of notifiable infectious disease in the United States, CDC analyzed 2009 NNDSS data for 67 conditions. The results of this analysis demonstrate that for five conditions, final case counts were lower than provisional counts, but for 59 conditions, final counts were higher than provisional counts. The median difference between final and provisional counts was 16.7%; differences were ≤20% for 39 diseases but >50% for 12. These differences occur for various diseases and in all states. Provisional case counts should be interpreted with caution and an understanding of the reporting process.

Reporting of cases of certain diseases is mandated at the state or local level, and states, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE), and CDC establish policies and procedures for submitting data from these jurisdictions to NNDSS. Not all notifiable diseases are reportable at the state level, and although disease reporting is mandated by legislation or regulation, state reporting to CDC is voluntary. States send reports of cases of nationally notifiable diseases to CDC on a weekly basis in one of several standard formats. Amended reports can be sent, as well as new reports. Cases are reported by week of notification to CDC. Cases reported each week to CDC and published in MMWR are deemed provisional. The NNDSS database is open throughout the year, allowing states to update their records as new information becomes available. Annually, CDC provides each state epidemiologist with a cutoff date (usually 6 months after the end of the reporting year) by which all records must be reconciled and no additional updates are accepted for that reporting period. After the database is closed, final case counts, prepared after the states have reconciled the year-to-date data with local reporting units, are approved by state epidemiologists as accurate reflections of final case counts for the year and are published in the MMWR Summary of Notifiable Diseases — United States. Data for 2009 were published in 2011 (2).

CDC’s publication schedule allows states time to complete case investigation tasks. To examine the extent that provisional counts of infectious diseases differ from final counts, CDC compared the cumulative case counts published for week 52 of 2009 in the MMWR of January 8, 2010 to the case counts published in the NNDSS final data set for 2009 (cutoff date of June 2010) published in MMWR on August 20, 2010. To assess whether discrepancies between provisional and final counts were more common in specific states or regions, or everywhere, reporting was examined, by state, of four diverse diseases: one sexually transmitted disease (Chlamydia trachomatis, genital infection), one vaccine-preventable disease (pertussis), one foodborne disease (salmonellosis), and one vectorborne disease (Lyme disease). Data are not presented for tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome because these data are published quarterly rather than weekly in MMWR. Weekly reports of these conditions to the public health community are of limited value because of differences in reporting patterns for these diseases, and long-term variations in the number of cases are more important to public health practitioners than weekly variations (3).

Reported data for 67 notifiable diseases were reviewed. Final counts were lower than provisional counts for five diseases, the same as provisional counts for three, and higher for 59 (Table 1). The median difference between final and provisional counts was 16.7%; differences were ≤20% for 39 diseases but >50% for 12. Among diseases with ≥10 cases reported in 2009, final counts were lower than provisional counts for just four: invasive Haemophilus influenzae disease, ages <5 years, unknown serotype (final: 166, provisional: 218); acute hepatitis C (final: 782, provisional: 844); toxic-shock syndrome, other than streptococcal (final: 74, provisional: 76); and influenza-associated pediatric mortality (final: 358, provisional: 360). Final counts were higher than provisional counts for 51 diseases. The greatest percentage differences between provisional and final case counts were for arboviral disease, West Nile virus (neuro/nonneuro) (final: 720, provisional: 0); mumps (final: 1,991, provisional: 982); and Hansen disease (final: 103, provisional: 59).

TABLE 1.

Comparison of provisional and finalized notifiable diseases data — National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, 2009

Disease Final data Provisional data Absolute change Change (%)
Anthrax 1 1
Arboviral disease, California serogroup (neuro/nonneuro) 55 41 14 (34.1)
Arboviral disease, Eastern equine (neuro/nonneuro) 4 4 0 (0.0)
Arboviral disease, Powassan (neuro) 6 1 5 (500.0)
Arboviral disease, St. Louis encephalitis (neuro/nonneuro) 12 10 2 (20.0)
Arboviral disease, West Nile virus (neuro/nonneuro) 720 720
Botulism, total 118 92 26 (28.3)
Brucellosis 115 100 15 (15.0)
Chancroid 28 25 3 (12.0)
Chlamydia trachomatis, genital infections 1,244,180 1,100,230 143,950 (13.1)
Cholera 10 8 2 (25.0)
Coccidioidomycosis 12,926 12,729 197 (1.5)
Cryptosporidiosis, total 7,654 6,652 1,002 (15.1)
Cyclosporiasis 141 123 18 (14.6)
Ehrlichiosis, Ehrlichia chaffeen 944 801 143 (17.9)
Ehrlichiosis, Ehrlichia ewingii 7 6 1 (16.6)
Ehrlichiosis, Anaplasma phagocytophilum 1,161 690 471 (68.3)
Ehrlichiosis, undetermined 155 122 33 (27.0)
Giardiasis 19,399 17,548 1,851 (10.6)
Gonorrhea 301,174 260,530 40,644 (15.6)
Haemophilus influenzae, invasive disease, all ages, both sexes 3,022 2,896 126 (4.4)
Haemophilus influenzae, invasive disease, ages <5 yrs, serotype b 38 25 13 (52.0)
Haemophilus influenzae, invasive disease, ages <5 yrs, nonserotype b 245 203 42 (20.7)
Haemophilus influenzae, invasive disease, ages <5 yrs, unknown serotype 166 218 −52 (−23.9)
Hansen disease 103 59 44 (74.6)
Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome 20 12 8 (66.7)
Hemolytic uremic syndrome postdiarrheal 242 210 32 (15.2)
Hepatitis A, viral, acute 1,987 1,849 138 (7.5)
Hepatitis B, viral, acute 3,405 3,020 385 (12.7)
Hepatitis C, viral, acute 782 844 −62 (−7.4)
Influenza-associated pediatric mortality 358 360 −2 (−0.6)
Legionellosis 3,522 3,145 377 (12.0)
Listeriosis 851 755 96 (12.7)
Lyme disease, total 38,468 29,780 8,688 (29.2)
Malaria 1,451 1,169 282 (24.1)
Measles, total 71 61 10 (16.4)
Meningococcal disease, all serogroups 980 887 93 (10.5)
Mumps 1,991 982 1,009 (102.8)
Pertussis 16,858 13,506 3,352 (24.8)
Plague 8 7 1 (14.3)
Polio 1 1
Psittacosis 9 9 0 (0.0)
Q fever, total 113 95 18 (19.0)
Rabies, animal 5,343 3,581 1,762 (49.2)
Rabies, human 4 4 0 (0.0)
Rocky Mountain spotted fever, total 1,815 1,393 422 (30.3)
Rubella 3 4 −1 (−25.0)
Rubella, congenital syndrome 2 1 1 (100.0)
Salmonellosis 49,192 44,468 4,724 (10.6)
Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) 4,643 4,323 320 (7.4)
Shigellosis 15,931 14,581 1,350 (9.3)
Streptococcal disease, invasive group A 5,279 4,861 418 (8.6)
Streptococcal toxic-shock syndrome 161 125 36 (28.8)
Streptococcus pneumoniae, invasive disease, drug resistant, all ages 3,370 2,823 547 (19.4)
Streptococcus pneumoniae, invasive disease, drug resistant, ages <5 yrs 583 464 119 (25.7)
Streptococcus pneumoniae, invasive disease, nondrug resistant, ages <5 yrs 1,988 1,768 220 (12.4)
Syphilis, congenital 427 257 170 (66.2)
Syphilis, primary and secondary 13,997 12,833 1,164 (9.1)
Tetanus 18 14 4 (28.6)
Toxic-shock syndrome (other than streptococcal) 74 76 −2 (−2.6)
Trichinellosis 13 12 1 (8.3)
Tularemia 93 79 14 (17.7)
Typhoid fever 397 324 73 (22.5)
Vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus (VISA) 78 70 8 (11.4)
Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA) 1 1
Varicella (chickenpox morbidity) 20,480 16,944 3,536 (20.9)
Vibriosis 789 593 196 (33.1)

Examining four diverse but commonly reported diseases in detail revealed no consistent association between state or region and the magnitude of the discrepancy between final and provisional counts (Table 2). For Chlamydia trachomatis, genital infections, the final case count was 13.1% higher than the provisional count nationally; it was <2% lower everywhere and ≥20% higher in six states. Two states, Arkansas and North Carolina, reported no cases provisionally, but reported final case counts of 14,354 and 41,045, respectively. For Lyme disease, the final case count was 29.2% higher than the provisional count nationally. Only 23 jurisdictions reported >100 cases, including 21 states, upstate New York, and New York City. Of these, four states reported a final count lower than their provisional count (range: 13.4%–29.2%) and eight jurisdictions reported final counts ≥20% higher. The greatest percentage differences between provisional and final case counts were in Connecticut (final: 4,156, provisional: none), Minnesota, (final: 1,543, provisional: 169), Texas (final: 276, provisional: 48), and New York City (final: 1,051, provisional: 262). For pertussis, the final case count was 24.8% higher than the provisional count nationally; it was <2% lower everywhere and ≥20% higher in 18 states and the District of Columbia (DC). Of the five states that reported >1,000 cases, the states with the greatest percentage differences between provisional and final counts were Minnesota (final: 1,121, provisional: 165) and Texas (final: 3,358, provisional: 2,437). For salmonellosis, the final case count was 10.6% higher than provisional count nationally. Six states reported a final count lower than their provisional count (range: 0.1%–2.9%) and nine states plus DC reported final counts ≥20% higher, the highest being DC (final: 100, provisional: 26), Louisiana (final: 1,180, provisional: 599), and Indiana (final: 629, provisional: 349).

TABLE 2.

Comparison of provisional and final reported cases of notifiable diseases for selected conditions, by state and area — National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System, United States, 2009

Chlamydia Lyme disease Pertussis Salmonellosis




Area Final Provisional Change (%) Final Provisional Change (%) Final Provisional Change (%) Final Provisional Change (%)
United States 1,244,180 1,100,230 (13.1) 38,468 29,780 (29.2) 16,858 13,506 (24.8) 49,191 44,468 (10.6)
New England 40,776 39,850 (2.3) 12,440 6,314 (97.0) 626 592 (5.7) 2,174 2,110 (3.0)
 Connecticut 12,127 11,532 (5.2) 4,156 56 48 (16.7) 430 406 (5.9)
 Maine 2,431 2,386 (1.9) 970 894 (8.5) 80 78 (2.6) 121 119 (1.7)
 Massachusetts 19,315 19,538 (−1.2) 5,256 3,662 (43.5) 358 348 (2.9) 1,155 1,159 (−0.4)
 New Hampshire 2,102 1,633 (28.7) 1,415 1,156 (22.4) 76 76 (0.0) 261 243 (7.4)
 Rhode Island 3,615 3,614 (0.0) 235 212 (10.9) 45 31 (45.2) 144 122 (18.0)
 Vermont 1,186 1,147 (3.4) 408 390 (4.6) 11 11 (0.0) 63 61 (3.3)
Mid-Atlantic 159,111 154,989 (2.7) 16,346 16,691 (−2.1) 1,222 1,101 (11.0) 5,514 5,001 (10.3)
 New Jersey 23,974 21,181 (13.2) 4,973 4,163 (19.5) 244 158 (54.4) 1,132 802 (41.2)
 New York (Upstate) 33,722 32,099 (5.1) 4,600 4,179 (10.1) 265 252 (5.2) 1,370 1,321 (3.7)
 New York City 58,347 59,370 (−1.7) 1,051 262 (301.2) 98 92 (6.5) 1,253 1,171 (7.0)
 Pennsylvania 43,068 42,339 (1.7) 5,722 8,087 (−29.2) 615 599 (2.7) 1,759 1,707 (3.1)
Eastern North Central 197,133 167,016 (18.0) 2,969 2,359 (25.9) 3,206 2,990 (7.2) 5,169 4,597 (12.4)
 Illinois 60,542 48,929 (23.7) 136 126 (7.9) 648 570 (13.7) 1,484 1,294 (14.7)
 Indiana 21,732 21,111 (2.9) 83 62 (33.9) 392 338 (16.0) 629 349 (80.2)
 Michigan 45,714 44,873 (1.9) 103 99 (4.0) 900 854 (5.4) 960 911 (5.4)
 Ohio 48,239 34,036 (41.7) 58 56 (3.6) 1,096 1,096 (0.0) 1,407 1,407 (0.0)
 Wisconsin 20,906 18,067 (15.7) 2,589 2,016 (28.4) 170 132 (28.8) 689 636 (8.3)
Western North Central 70,396 66,205 (6.3) 1,693 303 (458.8) 2,840 1,678 (69.3) 2,679 2,472 (8.4)
 Iowa 9,406 9,311 (1.0) 108 96 (12.5) 235 192 (22.4) 408 398 (2.5)
 Kansas 10,510 9,798 (7.3) 18 14 (28.6) 240 146 (64.4) 398 269 (48.0)
 Minnesota 14,197 12,222 (16.2) 1,543 169 (813.0) 1,121 165 (579.4) 575 572 (0.5)
 Missouri 25,868 25,698 (0.7) 3 3 (0.0) 1,015 975 (4.1) 656 667 (−1.7)
 Nebraska 5,443 5,262 (3.4) 5 20 (−75.0) 141 141 (0.0) 341 337 (1.2)
 North Dakota 1,957 1,769 (10.6) 15 30 29 (3.5) 103 73 (41.1)
 South Dakota 3,015 2,145 (40.6) 1 1 (0.0) 58 30 (93.3) 198 156 (26.9)
South Atlantic 249,979 194,409 (28.6) 4,466 3,778 (18.2) 1,632 1,551 (5.2) 14,478 13,488 (7.3)
 Delaware 4,718 4,718 (0.0) 984 952 (3.4) 13 13 (0.0) 142 137 (3.7)
 District of Columbia 6,549 6,414 (2.1) 61 20 (205.0) 7 3 (133.3) 100 26 (284.6)
 Florida 72,931 71,731 (1.7) 110 127 (−13.4) 497 500 (−0.6) 6,741 6,749 (−0.1)
 Georgia 39,828 29,934 (33.1) 40 53 (−24.5) 223 194 (15.0) 2,362 2,365 (−0.1)
 Maryland 23,747 22,138 (7.3) 2,024 1,775 (14,0) 148 134 (10.5) 803 784 (2.4)
 North Carolina 41,045 96 63 (52.4) 220 223 (−1.4) 1,810 1,053 (71.9)
 South Carolina 26,654 25,014 (6.7) 42 39 (7.7) 262 252 (4.0) 1,195 1,153 (3.6)
 Virginia 30,903 30,881 (0.1) 908 579 (56.8) 222 198 (12.1) 1,095 1,004 (9.1)
 West Virginia 3,604 3,579 (0.7) 201 170 (18.2) 40 34 (17.7) 230 217 (6.0)
Eastern South Central 92,522 87,926 (5.2) 41 36 (13.9) 803 760 (5.7) 3,077 2,937 (4.8)
 Alabama 25,929 22,833 (13.6) 3 3 (0.0) 305 285 (7.0) 932 850 (9.7)
 Kentucky 13,293 13,166 (1.0) 1 1 (0.0) 226 219 (3.2) 453 451 (0.4)
 Mississippi 23,589 22,146 (6.5) 75 66 (13.6) 899 853 (5.4)
 Tennessee 29,711 29,781 (−0.2) 37 32 (15.6) 197 190 (3.7) 793 783 (1.3)
Western South Central 162,915 136,836 (19.1) 278 48 (479.2) 3,993 2,882 (38.6) 6,411 4,751 (34.9)
 Arkansas 14,354 369 278 (32.7) 615 607 (1.3)
 Louisiana 27,628 25,308 (9.2) 149 90 (65.6) 1,180 599 (97.0)
 Oklahoma 15,023 12,959 (15.9) 2 117 77 (52.0) 652 615 (6.0)
 Texas 105,910 98,569 (7.5) 276 48 (475.0) 3,358 2,437 (37.8) 3,964 2,930 (35.3)
Mountain 80,476 73,912 (8.9) 57 44 (30.0) 1,019 890 (14.5) 3,028 2,812 (7.7)
 Arizona 26,002 25,110 (3.6) 7 6 (16.7) 277 224 (23.7) 1,086 1,051 (3.3)
 Colorado 19,998 16,362 (22.2) 1 1 (0.0) 231 233 (−0.9) 619 621 (−0.3)
 Idaho 3,842 3,501 (9.7) 16 15 (6.7) 99 99 (0.0) 174 172 (1.2)
 Montana 2,988 2,913 (2.6) 3 3 (0.0) 61 57 (7.0) 110 99 (11.1)
 Nevada 10,045 9,743 (3.1) 13 5 (160.0) 24 9 (166.7) 252 173 (45.7)
 New Mexico 9,493 8,947 (6.1) 5 5 (0.0) 85 66 (28.8) 369 325 (13.5)
 Utah 6,145 5,466 (12.4) 9 7 (28.6) 220 181 (21.6) 321 283 (13.4)
 Wyoming 1,963 1,870 (5.0) 3 2 (50.0) 22 21 (4.8) 97 88 (10.2)
Pacific 190,872 179,087 (6.6) 178 207 (−14.0) 1,517 1,062 (42.8) 6,662 6,300 (5.8)
 Alaska 5,166 4,412 (17.1) 7 3 (133.0) 59 49 (20.4) 68 70 (−2.9)
 California 146,796 139,689 (5.1) 117 154 (−24.0) 869 473 (83.7) 5,003 4,757 (5.2)
 Hawaii 6,026 5,610 (7.4) * * 46 29 (58.6) 338 297 (13.8)
 Oregon 11,497 10,245 (12.2) 38 35 (8.6) 252 246 (2.4) 433 416 (4.1)
 Washington 21,387 19,131 (11.8) 16 15 (6.7) 291 265 (9.8) 820 760 (7.9)
*

Not notifiable in Hawaii.

Editorial Note

The findings in this report corroborate previous observations that provisional NNDSS data should be interpreted with caution (1,4,5). The primary appeal of provisional counts is timeliness; in comparison, final counts are more complete and accurate. As additional information is collected during investigations, final case counts might be higher or lower than the provisional counts. Local and state health departments collect reportable surveillance data primarily to assist with disease control and prevention efforts (i.e., to monitor local outbreaks of infectious diseases), to measure disease burden among high-risk populations, and to assess effectiveness of local interventions. At the national level, these data can be compared with baseline data to detect unusual disease occurrences. Final data sets are useful in monitoring national trends and for determining the effectiveness of national intervention efforts. In 2009, final case counts did not differ from end-of-year provisional counts by >20% for two thirds of the 67 notifiable diseases examined. Understanding how provisional counts relate to final counts is essential for interpreting provisional data (6,7).

What is already known on this topic?

Provisional counts of notifiable diseases usually differ from final counts; they are most often lower.

What is added by this report?

In 2009, finalized case counts were higher than the provisional case counts for 59 of 67 notifiable diseases. The median difference between final and provisional counts was 16.7%; differences were ≤20% for 39 diseases but >50% for 12. These differences occur, to a greater or lesser extent, for a wide variety of diseases and in all states.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Notifiable disease data are subject to case reclassification leading to undernotification or overnotification. Provisional case counts should be interpreted with caution because of the reporting process. The primary appeal of provisional counts is timeliness; in comparison, final counts are more complete and accurate.

Final counts might be higher than provisional counts for several possible reasons: 1) as amended records are sent by states during the notification process, cases might be reclassified among confirmed, probable, suspected, and not-a-case categories; 2) states vary in their practices regarding when they report cases with incomplete data or that are under investigation, leading to variable delays; 3) allocation of cases to a state can be delayed; 4) laboratory testing, case investigation, and data entry can be delayed as a result of temporary staff absences (e.g., leave, furlough, or turnover); 5) states sometimes delay sending some reports to CDC until the end of the year; and 6) internal CDC data processing problems can cause a discrepancy.

The findings in this report are subject to at least one limitation. It was impossible to determine when final counts were known to the state and local jurisdictions so that they could take public health action. This report focuses only on counts published in MMWR. The jurisdictions might have been aware of final case counts sooner, and only notification to CDC was delayed. Although this study examined 1 year of data, previous research using multiple years of data for hepatitis A and B concluded that provisional data generally tend to underrepresent the final data counts for those conditions (1). The addition of more years to the current research, which examined multiple notifiable conditions and documents substantial differences across states, regions, and numerous conditions, would not be expected to change the overall results.

Interpreting weekly incidence data is complex because of surveillance system limitations. Nonetheless, health practitioners have to respond to public health threats based on preliminary surveillance information. In 2006, CDC and CSTE reconsidered data presentation formats and included additional information (e.g., 5-year weekly average, previous 52 weeks median, and maximum number of cases) to aid interpreting these data (3). However, the findings in this report illustrate that major challenges still exist in presenting and interpreting provisional data and highlights the need to examine specific factors that can contribute to late reporting of cases (e.g., late case reporting by providers to health departments or late reporting of cases by health departments to CDC) (4). Although information technology has improved notifiable disease reporting (8), NNDSS data remain subject to reporting artifacts. Understanding specific reasons for the variation between the provisional and final case counts for each condition can improve the use of provisional data for disease surveillance and notification.

Acknowledgments

Richard Hopkins, MD, Florida Dept of Health. John Davis-Cole, PhD, District of Columbia Dept of Health. Michael Landen, MD, New Mexico Dept of Health. Participating state health departments and reporting jurisdictions.

References

  • 1.Smallman-Raynor M, Cliff AD, Haggett P, Stroup DF, Williamson GD. Spatial and temporal patterns in final amendments to provisional disease counts. J Public Health Manag Pract. 1999;5:68–83. doi: 10.1097/00124784-199905000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.CDC. Summary of notifiable diseases—United States, 2009. MMWR. 2011;58(53) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.CDC. Notice to readers: changes in presentation of data from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. MMWR. 2006;55:13–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Stroup DF, Williamson GD, Herndon JL, Karon JM. Detection of aberrations in the occurrence of notifiable diseases surveillance data. Stat Med. 1989;8:323–9. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780080312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Stroup DF, Wharton M, Kafadar K, Dean AG. Evaluation of a method for detecting aberrations in public health surveillance system data. Am J Epidemiol. 1993;137:373–80. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Birkhead G, Chorba TL, Root S, Klaucke DN, Gibbs NJ. Timeliness of national reporting of communicable diseases: the experience of the National Electronic Telecommunications System for Surveillance. Am J Public Health. 1991;81:1313–5. doi: 10.2105/ajph.81.10.1313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Boehmer TK, Patnaik JL, Burnite SJ, Ghosh TS, Gershman K, Vogt RL. Use of hospital discharge data to evaluate notifiable disease reporting to Colorado’s Electronic Disease Reporting System. Public Health Rep. 2011;126:100–6. doi: 10.1177/003335491112600114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Silk BJ, Berkelman RL. A review of strategies for enhancing the completeness of notifiable disease reporting. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2005;11:191–200. doi: 10.1097/00124784-200505000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report are provided here courtesy of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

RESOURCES