2015
DOI: 10.4045/tidsskr.14.0770
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Tuberkuloseutbrudd på Østlandet

Abstract: Delayed diagnosis led to an unusually large tuberculosis outbreak in a Norwegian context. The extent of contact tracing varied with no obvious relation to the infectiousness of the index patient. The outbreak demonstrates the importance of continued vigilance with regard to tuberculosis as a differential diagnosis, also among patients born in Norway.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 8 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Currently, close monitoring of intimate contact persons is recommended but inquisition about a sexual relationship may refine the focus on individuals at risk [10]. In keeping with a recent Norwegian study [16], our analyses support a tracking strategy involving core family members first and farther contact persons second, complementing current algorithms based mainly on proximity and cumulative exposure time [10, 17]. Despite the poor predictive value of a positive IGRA test for the development of active tuberculosis, core contact persons may require a close follow-up [8].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Currently, close monitoring of intimate contact persons is recommended but inquisition about a sexual relationship may refine the focus on individuals at risk [10]. In keeping with a recent Norwegian study [16], our analyses support a tracking strategy involving core family members first and farther contact persons second, complementing current algorithms based mainly on proximity and cumulative exposure time [10, 17]. Despite the poor predictive value of a positive IGRA test for the development of active tuberculosis, core contact persons may require a close follow-up [8].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%