Although an investigation of a cryptosporidiosis outbreak in 1994 in Clark County, Nevada, concluded that illness was associated with consumption of municipal water, no water treatment deficiencies or breakdowns and no water quality changes were discovered during the investigation. We evaluated the strength of the evidence for waterborne transmission and conducted a sensitivity analysis to define the limitations of the epidemiological data. Our analyses suggest a spurious inference of waterborne transmission might be due to differential misclassification bias. If exposure and disease status were incorrectly classified for a relatively small number of study participants, findings of the investigation would be interpreted differently. We offer this example to illustrate the importance of assessing the stability of a relative risk estimate and effect of possible biases during an outbreak investigation.
Possible information bias in a waterborne outbreak investigation
Reprints and Corporate Permissions
Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?
To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:
Academic Permissions
Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?
Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:
If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.
Related research
People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.
Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.
Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.