Ross River virus transmission, infection, and disease: a cross-disciplinary review

Ross River virus (RRV) is a fascinating, important arbovirus that is endemic and enzootic in Australia and Papua New Guinea and was epidemic in the South Pacific in 1979 and 1980. Infection with RRV may cause disease in humans, typically presenting as peripheral polyarthralgia or arthritis, sometimes with fever and rash. RRV disease notificatïons in Australia average 5,000 per year. The first well-described outbreak occurred in 1928. During World War II there were more outbreaks, and the name epidemic polyarthritis was applied. During a 1956 outbreak, epidemic polyarthritis was linked serologically to a group A arbovirus (Alphavirus). The virus was subsequently isolated from Aedes vigilax mosquitoes in 1963 and then from epidemic polyarthritis patients. We review the literature on the evolutionary biology of RRV, immune response to infection, pathogenesis, serologic diagnosis, disease manifestations, the extraordinary variety of vertebrate hosts, mosquito vectors, and transmission cycles, antibody prevalence, epidemiology of asymptomatic and symptomatic human infection, infection risks, and public health impact. RRV arthritis is due to joint infection, and treatment is currently based on empirical anti-inflammatory regimens. Further research on pathogenesis may improve understanding of the natural history of this disease and lead to new treatment strategies. The burden of morbidity is considerable, and the virus could spread to other countries. To justify and design preventive programs, we need accurate data on economic costs and better understanding of transmission and behavioral and environmental risks.

Feasibility of an evidence-based literature search service for general practitioners

Objective: To test the feasibility of an evidence-based clinical literature search service to help answer general practitioners' (GPs') clinical questions. Design: Two search services supplied GPs who submitted questions with the best available empirical evidence to answer these questions. The GPs provided feedback on the value of the service, and concordance of answers from the two search services was assessed. Setting: Two literature search services (Queensland and Victoria), operating for nine months from February 1999. Main outcome measures: Use of the service; time taken to locate answers; availability of evidence; value of the service to GPs; and consistency of answers from the two services. Results: 58 GPs asked 160 questions (29 asked one, 11 asked five or more). The questions concerned treatment (65%), aetiology (17%), prognosis (13%), and diagnosis (5%). Answering a question took a mean of 3 hours 32 minutes of personnel time (95% Cl, 2.67-3.97); nine questions took longer than 10 hours each to answer, the longest taking 23 hours 30 minutes. Evidence of suitable quality to provide a sound answer was available for 126 (79%) questions. Feedback data for 84 (53%) questions, provided by 42 GPs, showed that they appreciated the service, and asking the questions changed clinical care. There were many minor differences between the answers from the two centres, and substantial differences in the evidence found for 4/14 questions. However, conclusions reached were largely similar, with no or only minor differences for all questions. Conclusions: It is feasible to provide a literature search service, but further assessment is needed to establish its cost effectiveness.