ArticleOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2025
Can the epidemiology of zoonotic disease be studied in routine health records? A feasibility study of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).
Article in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Governing antimicrobial resistance through One Health: a comparative analysis of public health governance in China and the United Kingdom.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Territorial Constraints on Trap-Neuter-Return in Insular Landscapes: Demographic and Ecological Implications of a Conservation-Oriented Policy.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Zoonotic diseases pose significant challenges to public health, creating substantial societal and economic burdens. Current surveillance systems rely primarily on laboratory-confirmed cases and statutory notifications, which may underestimate true disease prevalence. This study investigates the feasibility of using routine electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) as an alternative or complementary approach to zoonotic disease surveillance in the United Kingdom. The objective was to compare incidence of zoonotic diseases reported by Public Health England (PHE) with new diagnoses observed in the CPRD and to assess the potential of routine healthcare records for epidemiological monitoring. A comprehensive retrospective cohort study was conducted over a ten-year period (2009-2019), examining ten notifiable zoonotic diseases. Data were sourced from the CPRD, including primary care records, Hospital Episode Statistics, and Office for National Statistics death certification. Age-sex-standardised annual incidence was calculated using Poisson regression. The study analysed 10,441 new zoonotic disease cases in CPRD over 152 million person-years, compared to 32,167 cases reported by PHE over 631 million person-years. Overall, there was good correspondence between CPRD and PHE incidence data (R-square: 0.571). Lyme disease emerged as the most common zoonotic disease in CPRD (3.67 incident cases per 100,000 person-years) while pasteurellosis was underreported. The CPRD demonstrates potential as a complementary surveillance tool for zoonotic diseases. The study reveals both strengths and limitations of routine healthcare records in epidemiological monitoring, highlighting the need for integrated, multi-source approaches to disease surveillance including data-linkage with animal health records. This research provides critical insights for developing more comprehensive zoonotic disease monitoring strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.