---

WBUHS COMMUNITY MEDICINE - COMPREHENSIVE EXAM ANSWERS

Based on Park's Textbook of PSM, Gautam Biswas (Community Medicine), and standard WBUHS curriculum

---

CHAPTER 1: EPIDEMIOLOGY & STUDY DESIGNS

---

Q1. Cross-Sectional Study for Prevalence of Obesity among Medical Students (Barasat GMC) [2+13=15]

Part 1: Type and Design of Study [2 marks]

• The objective is to determine prevalence (existing cases at one point in time)
• The study must be completed within 3 months - cross-sectional studies are quick
• It is observational, non-invasive, and feasible in a student population
• No follow-up is required

Part 2: Steps of the Study [13 marks]

• Research Question: What is the prevalence of obesity among medical students of [Institution] in [Year]?
• Null Hypothesis (H0): The prevalence of obesity among medical students is not significantly different from the general population
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1): The prevalence of obesity is significantly higher among medical students

• Review existing published studies on obesity prevalence in Indian medical students
• Identify standard definitions, cut-off values (BMI ≥30 kg/m² for obesity; ≥25 for overweight; or WHO Asia-Pacific cut-off ≥27.5 for obesity)

• Study population: All MBBS students enrolled in the institution
• Sampling technique: Stratified Random Sampling (stratify by year of study: Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 Part 1, Phase 3 Part 2; then simple random sampling within each stratum)
• Sample size calculation: Using formula n = Z²pq/d² (where p = estimated prevalence ~20-25%, d = allowable error 5%, Z = 1.96 for 95% CI)

• Obesity defined as BMI ≥ 25 kg/m² (WHO Asia-Pacific guideline for South Asians) or BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² (standard WHO definition) - to be clearly stated

• Pre-tested, structured questionnaire including:
  • Demographic variables: age, sex, year of study
  • Dietary habits, physical activity, sleep hours
  • Anthropometric measurements: height (stadiometer), weight (calibrated weighing scale), waist circumference, hip circumference
  • Blood pressure measurement

• Obtain Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) approval
• Informed written consent from all participants
• Ensure anonymity and confidentiality

• Conduct on 10% of sample to check feasibility, refine questionnaire, train field investigators

• Anthropometric measurements by trained personnel using standardized techniques
• Self-administered questionnaire for lifestyle variables
• Duration: approximately 6-8 weeks

• Data entry in MS Excel / SPSS / EpiInfo
• Data cleaning and validation

• Calculate prevalence of obesity: (Number of obese students / Total students studied) × 100
• Describe distribution by age, sex, year of study (descriptive statistics)
• Chi-square test for association between categorical variables
• Calculate OR with 95% CI

• Compare findings with previous studies
• Draw conclusions, formulate recommendations
• Write and submit report / dissertation

• Cannot establish temporal relationship (cause-effect)
• Prevalence-incidence bias
• Recall bias possible for dietary/activity data

---

Q2. Village: 85 Cases of Diarrhoea in 3 Days after Community Feast (Midnapore) [2+8+3+2=15]

Part 1: Is it Epidemic or Outbreak? [2 marks]

• Epidemic: The occurrence of more cases of a disease than expected in a given area or among a specific group of people over a particular period of time (Park)
• Outbreak: WHO defines an outbreak as "the occurrence of cases of disease in excess of what would normally be expected in a defined community, geographical area or season." The term is often used interchangeably with epidemic, but "outbreak" tends to be used for more circumscribed or localized situations

• Sudden clustering in time (3 days)
• Confined to a small geographic area (village)
• Associated with a common source (feast)
• Occurrence exceeds what is normally expected

Part 2: Steps of Investigation [8 marks]

• Verify the diagnosis by reviewing case records, clinical features
• Compare with baseline data - is this above expected? (Already confirmed: 85 cases in 3 days is clearly above normal)

• Examine a representative number of cases clinically
• Collect stool samples / rectal swabs from 10-15 cases for culture and sensitivity
• Also collect food samples from the feast (if still available) for bacteriological examination
• Blood cultures if typhoid/enteric fever suspected

• Suspect case: Any person who attended the community feast on [date] and developed ≥3 loose stools per day with onset within [incubation period]
• Confirmed case: Suspect case with positive stool culture

• Active surveillance: door-to-door visit in the village
• Contact all households to identify unreported cases
• Prepare a line listing of all cases with: name, age, sex, address, date of onset, symptoms, attendance at feast, food items consumed, outcome

• Time: Draw epidemic curve (cases vs. time of onset) - expected: steep single-peak common source curve
• Place: Spot map - mark cases on village map
• Person: Age-sex distribution, attack rates by food item consumed

• Based on incubation period, clinical features, and food items, hypothesize the causative agent and vehicle
• e.g., Short incubation (1-6 hrs): Staphylococcal toxin; 6-24 hrs: Salmonella/C. perfringens; >24 hrs: Vibrio/E. coli/Shigella

• Calculate food-specific attack rates for each food item served at the feast
• Item with highest attack rate among those who consumed it (and lowest in those who did not) is the likely vehicle

• Conduct Case-Control Study or Retrospective Cohort Study (see Part 3)

• Prepare detailed epidemiological report
• Send report to BMOH, CMOH, State Health Authorities (Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme - IDSP)

Part 3: Epidemiological Study Design to Identify Source [3 marks]

• The entire cohort (all feast attendees) is known and identifiable
• Both exposed (ate specific food) and unexposed (did not eat specific food) persons can be identified
• Calculates attack rates and Relative Risk (RR) for each food item
• Quick and feasible for localized outbreaks

• Interview all feast attendees (or random sample if too many)
• Record: each food item consumed (yes/no) and whether illness developed (yes/no)
• For each food item: calculate Attack Rate in Exposed (ARE) and Attack Rate in Unexposed (ARU)
• Calculate RR = ARE / ARU
• The food with highest RR and statistically significant association is the likely vehicle

Part 4: Two Immediate Control Measures [2 marks]

1. Safe water and food safety measures: Immediately ban the responsible food/water source; supply ORS and safe drinking water (chlorinated); all remaining food items from feast to be condemned and destroyed; food handlers to be examined and treated
2. Treatment and reporting: Set up treatment camp in the village; provide ORS to all cases; severe cases to be referred to PHC/hospital; notify BMOH and IDSP (Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme) as outbreak of Acute Diarrhoeal Disease (ADD)

---

Q3. Outbreak Investigation: Acute Watery Diarrhoea, 45 Cases, 2 Deaths, Village Pop 1500 (Barasat GMC) [6+4+5=15]

Part 1: Step-by-step Procedure to Investigate [6 marks]

• Suspect: Any resident of the village who developed 3 or more watery loose stools per day with onset after [date]
• Confirmed: Positive stool culture for V. cholerae

• House-to-house survey; line listing of all cases
• Register all cases at PHC

• Time: Draw epidemic curve
• Place: Spot map - cluster around common water source?
• Person: Age/sex, occupation - all age groups affected suggests common water/food source

Part 2: Define Attack Rate and Calculate [4 marks]

"Attack rate is a specific type of incidence rate used in the context of outbreaks. It is defined as the number of new cases of a disease developing in a population exposed to the source, divided by the total population at risk, expressed as a percentage."

• AR = (Number of new cases / Population at risk) × 100

• Number of new cases = 45
• Total population of village = 1,500
• Attack Rate = (45/1500) × 100 = 3%

Part 3: Immediate and Long-term Environmental Sanitation Plan [5 marks]

1. Safe water supply: Identify and close contaminated water source(s); chlorinate all drinking water sources (bleaching powder 2-4 mg/L free residual chlorine); distribute ORS packets; establish tube wells/emergency safe water supply
2. Food safety: Ban sale of street food; inspect food outlets; educate community on food safety
3. Case management: Set up Oral Rehydration Therapy (ORT) corner at PHC; treat severe cases with IV fluids; isolate if cholera confirmed; Doxycycline/Tetracycline for confirmed cholera contacts
4. Sanitation emergency: Provide temporary toilets if necessary; mass IEC on hand washing with soap; disinfect latrines with bleaching powder
5. Reporting: Notify to IDSP, issue health advisory

1. Safe water supply infrastructure: Install/repair hand pumps, provide piped water supply to all households under Jal Jeevan Mission; regular water quality testing (bacteriological) under NRDWP
2. Sanitation: Achieve Open Defecation Free (ODF) status under Swachh Bharat Mission; construct sanitary latrines in all households; ensure proper solid waste disposal
3. Health education: Regular IEC on personal hygiene, hand washing with soap (5 critical moments), safe food handling, boiling drinking water
4. Food safety regulation: Regular inspection of food handlers and eateries; enforce Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA) 2006
5. Surveillance strengthening: Strengthen IDSP at block/district level; establish sentinel surveillance sites; early warning system for ADD outbreaks
6. Immunization: Consider Oral Cholera Vaccine (OCV) for high-risk populations if cholera confirmed

---

Q4. Children with Fever + Jaundice after Village Fair (Food Stalls) (College of Medicine & Sagore Dutta) [2+5+3=10]

Part 1: Most Probable Diagnosis [2 marks]

• Children aged 5-10 years (most susceptible age group)
• Fever, loss of appetite, nausea, yellowish discoloration of eyes and skin (jaundice) = classic clinical triad of Hepatitis A
• Onset over 2 weeks after a village fair with street food stalls (fuchka, velpuri, jhalmuri) - implying feco-oral route contamination
• Incubation period of Hepatitis A: 15-50 days (average 28 days) - consistent with 2-week onset
• Street food items typically associated with contaminated water/ice/uncooked food

Part 2: Steps of Investigation and Control Measures [5 marks]

1. Confirm diagnosis: Clinical examination; liver function tests (elevated SGPT/SGOT, elevated bilirubin); serology - Anti-HAV IgM (specific for acute infection)
2. Establish case definition: Any child in block X aged 5-10 years with acute onset of fever + jaundice within [date range] who attended the village fair
3. Active case finding: House-to-house survey; school-based survey; line listing
4. Descriptive epidemiology: Draw epidemic curve; spot map; attack rates by food item consumed at fair
5. Analytical study: Case-control study - compare food items consumed by cases vs. controls (children who did not develop illness)
6. Environmental investigation: Collect water/food samples from fair stalls; inspect hygiene conditions
7. Report to IDSP under Viral Hepatitis (Early Warning Signal)

• Isolate cases (enteric precautions); no school attendance until non-infectious
• Safe water supply and hand washing promotion
• Close/inspect contaminated food stalls; food handler testing
• Passive immunization with Hepatitis A immunoglobulin to close contacts
• Active immunization with Hepatitis A vaccine to susceptible contacts

Part 3: Prevention of Recurrence [3 marks]

1. Hepatitis A vaccination for all children in the block (2 doses: at 12-18 months and 6-18 months later); consider catch-up vaccination for older children
2. Water and food safety: Safe piped water supply; chlorination; no use of contaminated water for food preparation; ban use of polluted water/ice
3. Food handler regulation: Health certificates for food handlers; regular stool examination; training on personal hygiene; FSSA licensing for fair vendors
4. Sanitation: ODF status; safe disposal of human excreta; elimination of open drains near food preparation areas
5. IEC: Educate community on hand washing, food hygiene, avoiding street food in high-risk settings

---

Q5. Cohort Study for Radiation Effects in Nuclear Plant Workers (JNM Kalyani) [2+8+5=15]

Part 1: Ideal Study Design [2 marks]

• Study over the next 5 years = follow-up in future time = prospective
• The exposure (radiation) is identifiable at the start of the study
• The outcome (disease/health effects from radiation) will be measured over time
• Allows calculation of Incidence Rate, Relative Risk (RR), Attributable Risk (AR)
• Establishes temporal relationship (exposure precedes disease)
• Ethically cannot do RCT (cannot deliberately expose humans to radiation)
• Case-control not ideal as outcome may be rare radiation effects not yet established in records

Part 2: Steps of Conducting the Cohort Study [8 marks]

• RQ: Does occupational exposure to radiation in nuclear plant workers increase the risk of developing cancer/radiation-related diseases over 5 years?
• H0: Incidence of radiation-related diseases is not higher in exposed workers compared to unexposed controls

• Exposed cohort: Workers with measurable radiation exposure (classified by dosimetry badge readings into high/moderate/low exposure groups)
• Unexposed cohort (comparison group): Workers in the same plant with no radiation exposure (administrative staff, canteen workers) OR age-sex matched population cohort from general community

• Inclusion: All workers aged 18-60 years at the start of study, currently disease-free
• Exclusion: Workers with pre-existing cancer, chronic diseases that may confound results

• Socio-demographic data: age, sex, education
• Occupational history: duration of employment, type of work, radiation badge readings (dosimetry)
• Health status: complete medical examination, blood count (CBC), liver function tests, kidney function
• Lifestyle factors: smoking, alcohol (confounders)

• Regular medical examinations: every 6 months for 5 years
• Annual blood tests: CBC (detect leukemia), thyroid function, chromosomal analysis
• Radiation dose monitoring: continuous personal dosimeter readings
• Record all new diagnoses, hospitalizations, deaths
• Minimize loss to follow-up: maintain contact details, annual reminders

• Primary outcomes: incidence of cancer (leukemia, thyroid cancer, solid tumors), cataract, radiation sickness
• Secondary outcomes: chromosomal abnormalities, infertility

• Calculate Incidence Rate in exposed and unexposed groups
• Calculate Relative Risk (RR) = IR(exposed) / IR(unexposed)
• Calculate Attributable Risk (AR) = IR(exposed) - IR(unexposed)
• Dose-response relationship analysis
• Cox proportional hazards model for multivariate analysis

• If RR >1 with statistical significance: radiation exposure is associated with increased disease risk
• Follow reporting guidelines (STROBE checklist)

Part 3: Disadvantages of Cohort Study [5 marks]

1. Time-consuming and expensive: Requires 5 years of follow-up; high cost of repeated medical examinations and laboratory tests
2. Loss to follow-up (Attrition bias): Workers may resign, migrate, or die from unrelated causes during 5 years; can bias results if loss is differential between exposed and unexposed groups
3. Not suitable for rare diseases: If the disease has very low incidence, an extremely large cohort is needed to get meaningful results
4. Changes over time (Temporal changes): During 5 years, diagnostic criteria may change; new equipment may alter radiation exposure levels; other risk factors in workers' lives may change
5. Confounding: Multiple confounders (smoking, diet, other chemical exposures) can affect disease incidence; even with careful design, residual confounding may remain
6. Investigator bias: In prospective studies, knowledge of exposure may influence how outcomes are assessed (reduced by blinded outcome assessment)
7. Healthy worker effect: Workers selected for nuclear plant employment tend to be healthier than general population - underestimates disease risk

---

Q6. Case-Control Study: Obesity as Risk Factor for Osteoarthritis of Knee (PC Sen) [8+4+3=15]

Part 1: Design the Case-Control Study [8 marks]

• Cases: All patients aged 35-65 years with newly diagnosed osteoarthritis of knee joint (radiologically confirmed - Grade 2-4 on Kellgren-Lawrence scale) presenting to the outpatient department (OPD) of the study hospital
• Source: Hospital-based or community-based (hospital-based preferred for feasibility)

• Controls: Patients of same age (35-65 years) and sex attending the same hospital OPD for unrelated conditions (e.g., eye disease, dermatology) WITHOUT knee osteoarthritis
• Matching: Match 1:1 (or 1:2) for age (within 5 years), sex, and residential area to control for confounding

• Inclusion (Cases): Radiologically confirmed OA knee, age 35-65, resident of study area, willing to participate
• Exclusion: Traumatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-operative knee, secondary OA, BMI data unavailable

• Using formula: n = [Z²(p1q1/r + p2q2)] / (p1-p2)² where r = ratio of controls to cases
• Estimated OR = 2.0 based on literature; α = 0.05, Power = 80%

• Measure BMI at time of interview: Wt(kg)/Ht(m)²
• Define obesity: BMI ≥ 25 kg/m² (overweight, Asia-Pacific) or ≥ 30 kg/m²
• Also collect: waist circumference, dietary history, physical activity, occupation (sitting job vs. labour)
• Retrospective information on previous BMI from records/patient recall

• Collect data on age, sex, occupation, physical activity, family history of OA, previous joint injuries (confounders)

• Construct 2x2 table:

• OR = (a/c) / (b/d) = ad/bc
• If OR >1: obesity is associated with increased risk of OA knee
• Calculate 95% Confidence Interval; if it does not include 1: statistically significant

Part 2: Advantages of Case-Control Study [4 marks]

1. Suitable for rare diseases: OA of knee is not extremely rare, but CCS can study diseases with low incidence efficiently
2. Quick and inexpensive: Both disease and exposure have already occurred; no follow-up needed
3. Can study multiple exposures simultaneously: One study can assess obesity, occupation, physical activity, family history etc. at once
4. Smaller sample size needed compared to cohort study for same statistical power
5. No ethical issues of exposing subjects to risk factors

Disadvantages of Case-Control Study [included in marks]

1. Cannot calculate Incidence or Relative Risk directly - only Odds Ratio
2. Recall bias: Cases tend to remember past exposure differently than controls (differential recall)
3. Selection bias: Choosing appropriate controls is difficult; hospital controls may not represent the general population
4. Temporal relationship difficult to establish: Cannot always confirm that exposure preceded disease
5. Not suitable for rare exposures

Part 3: Types of Bias in Case-Control Study [3 marks]

1. Selection Bias:
   • Berkson's bias (Admission rate bias): Hospital patients have different exposure rates than general population
   • Neyman's bias (Prevalence-incidence bias): If cases include prevalent rather than incident cases, exposure among those who died early is missed
2. Information Bias:
   • Recall bias: Cases (with disease) tend to recall past exposures more intensely/differently than controls
   • Interviewer bias: The person collecting information may probe cases differently than controls (reduced by blinding interviewer to case/control status)
3. Confounding: A third variable (e.g., physical activity, occupation) is associated with both obesity and OA, and distorts the true relationship
   • Controlled by: matching, restriction, stratification, multivariate analysis

---

Q7. Cohort Study for OCP and Breast Cancer (ESI Joka) [1+2+6+3+3=15]

Part 1: Type of Study [1 mark]

Part 2: Why This Study? [2 marks]

• To study a causal association between exposure (OCP) and disease (breast cancer)
• Cohort study is the gold standard for establishing temporal relationship - exposure is documented first, then followed for outcome
• Provides Relative Risk (RR) - the best measure of association
• Breast cancer has a long latency - cohort study allows observation over time
• Ethical considerations prevent randomization (cannot assign women to OCP or no-OCP)

Part 3: Steps of the Study [6 marks]

1. Define study population: Women aged 20-45 years, currently free of breast cancer
2. Form two cohorts:
   • Exposed cohort: Women currently using or who have used OCP
   • Unexposed cohort: Women who have never used OCP, matched for age, parity, family history
3. Baseline assessment: Demographic data, OCP use history (type, duration, dose), family history of breast cancer, reproductive history, lifestyle factors (smoking, alcohol, HRT use)
4. Follow-up: Annual clinical breast examination, mammography (if indicated), self-reported OCP use continuation, every 2-3 years for minimum 10-15 years
5. Outcome measurement: New diagnosis of breast cancer (histologically confirmed)
6. Analysis: Calculate Incidence Rate, Relative Risk (RR), Attributable Risk; control for confounders by multivariate analysis

Part 4: Advantages [3 marks]

1. Establishes temporal relationship (OCP use precedes cancer)
2. Directly calculates Incidence Rate and Relative Risk
3. Can assess dose-response relationship (duration of OCP use vs. cancer risk)
4. Multiple outcomes can be studied simultaneously (breast cancer, ovarian cancer, cardiovascular disease)
5. Less susceptible to recall bias (exposure recorded at baseline, prospectively)

Part 5: Disadvantages [3 marks]

1. Takes very long time (10-15+ years follow-up)
2. Very expensive
3. Loss to follow-up is a major problem
4. Not suitable for rare diseases
5. Healthy cohort effect - OCP users may be of higher socioeconomic status
6. Changes in OCP formulations over time complicate analysis

---

Q8. Rare Fatal Disease Associated with Smoking - Case-Control Study (Bankura Sammilani) [2+8+5=15]

Part 1: Type of Study [2 marks]

• The disease is very rare: Cohort study would need an enormous sample to encounter enough cases; case-control starts from identified cases
• The disease is fatal: Patients available for study are few; retrospective approach via case-control is feasible
• Quick and cost-effective for rare outcomes
• The association with smoking can be assessed using Odds Ratio

Part 2: Steps to Conduct [8 marks]

1. Define cases: All newly diagnosed patients with the rare disease in a defined region (hospital/community based)
2. Define controls: Persons without the disease, matched for age, sex, locality (1:2 or 1:4 matching)
3. Source of cases: Hospital records, cancer registries, death certificates
4. Eligibility criteria: Cases - confirmed diagnosis, age >18; Exclude: cases who cannot be interviewed
5. Measure exposure: Interview cases and controls about smoking history (pack-years, type, duration, age of onset); use structured questionnaire; may use proxy informants for deceased cases
6. Collect confounder data: Occupational exposures, alcohol use, diet, family history
7. Sample size calculation: Based on estimated OR, prevalence of smoking in controls, desired power
8. Analysis: 2x2 table, calculate Odds Ratio, 95% CI, P-value; conditional logistic regression for matched analysis
9. Ethical clearance: IEC approval, informed consent (or proxy consent for deceased)
10. Report findings

Part 3: Advantages and Disadvantages [5 marks]

1. Best design for rare and fatal diseases (starts with cases)
2. Quick - no waiting for disease to develop
3. Inexpensive
4. Small sample size required
5. Can study multiple exposures (smoking type, duration, pack-years)
6. Useful where cohort follow-up is not feasible

1. Cannot directly calculate Incidence Rate or Relative Risk (only OR)
2. Prone to recall bias (cases remember smoking differently)
3. Berkson's bias in hospital-based studies
4. Temporal relationship not clearly established
5. Difficult to select representative controls
6. Information on exposure may be incomplete (especially for fatal cases - proxy informants)
7. Cannot study multiple outcomes simultaneously

---

Q9. Screen Time and Mental Disorders - Cohort Study (College of Medicine & Sagore Dutta) [2+8+2+3=15]

Part 1: Most Appropriate Study [2 marks]

• Establishes temporal sequence (screen time exposure precedes mental disorder)
• Can calculate RR
• The exposure (childhood screen time) needs to be measured before the outcome occurs

Part 2: Steps Including Analysis and Interpretation [8 marks]

1. Define study population: Children aged 2-5 years (early childhood) in the study area
2. Measure baseline exposure: Screen time per day (TV, mobile, tablet) using validated questionnaire (e.g., parent-reported); classify: low (<1 hr/day), moderate (1-3 hrs), high (>3 hrs) - as per AAP guidelines
3. Baseline health assessment: Current mental health status (exclude pre-existing disorders); developmental assessment; socioeconomic status; parental education; family environment
4. Follow-up: Re-assess at ages 10, 13, 16 years (until adolescence)
5. Outcome measurement: Screen for common mental disorders using validated tools (SCARED for anxiety; CDI for depression; ADHD rating scale; SDQ - Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire) at each follow-up
6. Analysis:
   • Incidence rates of mental disorders in each screen time category
   • Relative Risk (RR): high screen time group vs. low screen time group
   • Dose-response: increasing screen time → increasing risk?
   • Multivariate regression (Cox) to control confounders
7. Interpretation: If RR >1 with 95% CI not including 1: significant association; assess causal criteria (Bradford Hill)

Part 3: Common Biases [2 marks]

1. Loss to follow-up bias: Families with children with mental disorders may be more/less likely to drop out
2. Information bias / Measurement bias: Screen time measured by parental recall - not objective
3. Confounding: Socioeconomic status, parenting style, peer influence, academic stress are confounders

Part 4: Methods to Address Biases [3 marks]

1. Minimize loss to follow-up: Active tracing, incentives, multiple contact points
2. Objective measurement of screen time: Use validated digital screen time apps rather than parental recall
3. Control confounding: Collect data on all known confounders at baseline; use stratification and multivariate regression; propensity score matching

---

Q10. Cohort Study: Obesity and Hypertension (Deben Mahata GMC) [1+6+2+2+4=15]

Part 1: Most Appropriate Study Design [1 mark]

Part 2: Steps [6 marks]

1. Select 6000 adult male individuals aged 25-30 years without hypertension at baseline
2. Classify into two cohorts: Obese (BMI ≥25 or ≥30) - n=2000; Non-obese - n=4000
3. Baseline assessment: BP measurement, BMI, waist circumference, fasting blood glucose, lipid profile, lifestyle factors (diet, exercise, smoking, alcohol)
4. Follow-up: Annual BP measurement, re-assessment of weight, medication use; over 15 years
5. Outcome: New diagnosis of hypertension (BP ≥140/90 mmHg on two separate occasions)
6. Analysis: See Part 5

Part 3: Advantages [2 marks]

• Establishes temporal relationship (obesity precedes hypertension)
• Directly calculates incidence and RR
• Can assess dose-response (BMI level vs. HTN risk)

Part 4: Disadvantages [2 marks]

• Long follow-up (15 years), expensive, loss to follow-up
• Changes in obesity/hypertension definitions over 15 years

Part 5: Analysis of Findings [4 marks]

---

Q11. Define Epidemiology, Classify Epidemiological Studies, Steps of Cohort Study, Bias (MCK) [2+5+5+3=15]

Part 1: Define Epidemiology [2 marks]

"Epidemiology is the study of the distribution and determinants of health-related states or events in specified populations, and the application of this study to the control of health problems."

• Distribution: Who, Where, When (Person, Place, Time)
• Determinants: Risk factors, causes
• Health-related states or events: Not just disease but also health conditions, injuries, death
• Specified populations: Groups, communities (not individuals)
• Application: Practical use for control and prevention

Part 2: Classification of Epidemiological Studies [5 marks]

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES
│
├── OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES (No intervention by investigator)
│   ├── DESCRIPTIVE STUDIES
│   │   ├── Case Reports / Case Series
│   │   ├── Cross-Sectional Survey (Prevalence Study)
│   │   └── Ecological (Correlational) Study
│   │
│   └── ANALYTICAL STUDIES
│       ├── Case-Control Study (Retrospective)
│       └── Cohort Study (Prospective / Retrospective)
│
└── EXPERIMENTAL / INTERVENTIONAL STUDIES
    ├── Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)
    ├── Field Trial (Community Trial)
    ├── Community Intervention Trial
    └── Natural Experiment

Part 3: Steps of Cohort Study [5 marks]

1. Selection of Study Subjects: From general population or special groups (occupational, professional); must be free of disease at start
2. Obtaining Data on Exposure: By interview, questionnaire, medical records, medical examination, or environmental survey; classify into exposed and unexposed (or by degree of exposure)
3. Selection of Comparison Group (Unexposed cohort): Internal comparison (within same cohort) or external comparison (population comparison) or general population comparison
4. Follow-up: Active follow-up at regular intervals; minimize loss to follow-up; record new cases of disease, death, migration
5. Analysis: Calculate Incidence Rate in exposed and unexposed; Relative Risk (RR) = IR(exposed)/IR(unexposed); Attributable Risk; Attributable Risk Percent; Population Attributable Risk

Part 4: Bias in Cohort Study [3 marks]

1. Loss to follow-up bias (Attrition bias): If those who are lost are systematically different from those who remain (e.g., sicker people or those with more exposure drop out) - most critical bias in cohort studies
2. Selection bias: If exposed and unexposed cohorts are not comparable at baseline regarding confounders; "healthy worker effect" (workers are healthier than general population at start)
3. Information bias / Observation bias: If knowledge of exposure status influences the assessment of outcome (reduced by blinded outcome assessors)
4. Confounding: Third variables associated with both exposure and outcome distort the true relationship; controlled by matching, stratification, multivariate analysis
5. Migration bias: Movement of cohort members between exposed and unexposed groups over time

---

Q12. RCT for Comparing Two Drugs in Hypertension (IQ City Medical College) [1+6+3=10]

Part 1: Appropriate Study Design [1 mark]

Part 2: Steps [6 marks]

1. Define research question: Is Drug A more effective than Drug B in reducing blood pressure (systolic BP) in patients with hypertension?
2. Study population: Patients with newly diagnosed hypertension (Stage 1 or 2, BP ≥140/90), aged 30-65 years, not on any antihypertensive medication
3. Sample size calculation: Based on expected difference in BP reduction, SD of BP, α=0.05, Power=80%
4. Randomization: Allocate participants randomly to Drug A or Drug B using computer-generated random number table; allocation concealment by sealed opaque envelopes (prevents selection bias)
5. Blinding: Double-blind - neither participants nor investigators know which drug is received; use identical-looking capsules (reduces performance and detection bias)
6. Intervention: Drug A vs Drug B for 12 weeks at standard doses; regular monitoring
7. Outcome measurement: Primary: reduction in systolic and diastolic BP at 12 weeks; Secondary: side effects, adherence
8. Follow-up: Weekly BP monitoring; adherence check; adverse event reporting
9. Analysis: Per-protocol and Intention-to-treat analysis; t-test or ANOVA; P-value, 95% CI
10. Ethical clearance and CTRI registration

Part 3: Biases and Control [3 marks]

1. Selection bias - Controlled by: Randomization and allocation concealment
2. Performance bias - Participants behave differently if they know their group: Controlled by blinding
3. Detection bias - Outcome assessor biased: Controlled by blinding of outcome assessor
4. Attrition bias - Loss to follow-up: Controlled by Intention-to-treat analysis (all randomized patients analyzed in their assigned group)
5. Reporting bias - Selective reporting of outcomes: Controlled by pre-registering the trial (CTRI) and specifying primary outcome before trial

---

Q13. Epidemic Curve - Definition, Draw and Interpret (IQ City Medical College)

Epidemic Curve

• Since cases appeared rapidly in 2 days mostly among feast attendees, the curve would show:
  • Rapid rise within hours (common source)
  • Single sharp peak - classical inverted J-shape
  • Rapid decline after the source is removed (feast ended)

---

Q14. Time Trends in Disease Occurrence (R.G. Kar Medical College) [12+3=15]

Part 1: Types of Time Trends [12 marks]

A. Short-term Fluctuations (Epidemic Fluctuations)

• Rapid changes in disease frequency over days, weeks, or months
• Associated with outbreaks and epidemics
• Examples:
  • Seasonal peaks of influenza in winter
  • Cholera outbreak after floods
  • COVID-19 waves

B. Periodic Fluctuations (Cyclic / Recurrent changes)

1. Seasonal variation: Regular fluctuation corresponding to seasons of the year
   • Examples: Malaria in monsoon, measles in winter/spring (India), cholera in summer
   • Caused by: seasonal changes in vector population, host immunity, environmental factors
2. Cyclic trends: Recurrent epidemics at intervals of several years (longer than seasonal)
   • Examples: Measles epidemics every 2-3 years (before widespread immunization), influenza pandemics every 10-40 years
   • Caused by: accumulation of susceptible population after each epidemic (herd immunity depleted then rebuilt as new cohorts are born)

C. Secular (Long-term) Trends

• Gradual changes in disease frequency over decades
• Examples:
  • Declining tuberculosis mortality in Europe (before antibiotics) - due to improved nutrition/living conditions
  • Rising trend of coronary heart disease in the 20th century
  • Rising trend of obesity and type 2 diabetes worldwide
  • Declining polio after immunization
• Important for planning long-term health programs

D. Irregular Fluctuations

• Sudden unexpected increases not explained by the above patterns
• Example: Sudden emergence of a new disease (COVID-19, SARS, bird flu)

Part 2: Possible Changes to Keep in Mind While Interpreting Time Trends [3 marks]

1. Changes in diagnostic criteria and methods: Improved diagnostic technology may lead to apparent increase in disease frequency (more cases detected, not more cases occurring)
2. Changes in disease reporting and notification: Improved surveillance systems, new IDSP reporting may increase detected cases
3. Changes in population structure: Ageing population may show increase in age-related diseases; denominator (census population) changes affect rates
4. Changes in disease classification (ICD codes): Reclassification may shift cases between categories
5. Changes in risk factor exposure: True changes in lifestyle, environment, occupation

---

Q15. Framingham Study - Type, Steps, Advantages/Disadvantages, Causal Association (KPC Jadavpur) [1+5+4+5=15]

Part 1: Type of Study [1 mark]

Part 2: Steps [5 marks]

1. Selection of cohort: 5,209 residents of Framingham, Massachusetts, aged 30-62 years, free of cardiovascular disease in 1948 (general population cohort)
2. Baseline assessment: Complete medical examination, ECG, blood pressure, cholesterol, lifestyle factors (smoking, diet, exercise)
3. Follow-up: Biennial (every 2 years) clinical examination and medical history for over 70 years; second and third generation cohorts added later
4. Outcome measurement: New onset of coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, atrial fibrillation
5. Analysis: Calculate incidence rates; identify risk factors by comparing incidence in those with and without the factor; logistic regression for multivariate analysis; Framingham Risk Score developed

Part 3: Advantages and Disadvantages [4 marks]

• Establishes temporal relationship (risk factor precedes disease)
• Directly measures incidence and RR
• Can study multiple outcomes (CAD, stroke, AF, HF, peripheral artery disease)
• Identified major risk factors for CVD (hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, smoking, diabetes, obesity)
• Can assess dose-response relationships
• Long follow-up reveals lifetime risk

• Expensive and time-consuming
• Loss to follow-up over 70+ years
• Framingham population (white, middle-class, Massachusetts) may not represent all populations
• "Healthy cohort" effect at baseline
• Cannot study very rare outcomes efficiently

Part 4: Criteria for Causal Association (Bradford Hill Criteria) [5 marks]

1. Strength of association: Strong association (high RR) is more likely to be causal - e.g., RR of 10 for smoking and lung cancer
2. Consistency: Association is seen across different studies, populations, times, and places
3. Specificity: One exposure causes one specific disease (though not always essential)
4. Temporality (Time sequence): Exposure must precede the disease - the ONLY absolute criterion
5. Biological gradient (Dose-response): Increasing exposure leads to increasing disease frequency (e.g., more cigarettes → more lung cancer)
6. Biological plausibility: The association makes biological sense (known mechanism)
7. Coherence: Association is consistent with known facts about the natural history and biology of the disease
8. Experimental evidence: Removal of exposure reduces disease (e.g., smoking cessation reduces lung cancer risk)
9. Analogy: Similar relationships known (e.g., thalidomide and phocomelia helped understand other teratogens)

---

Q16. Define Epidemic, Types of Epidemic, Epidemiological Investigation of Rash and Fever in Children (CNMC) [2+2+6=10]

Part 1: Define Epidemic [2 marks]

Part 2: Types of Epidemics [2 marks]

1. Common-source epidemic: All cases exposed to a single source
   • Point source: Single exposure at one point in time (food poisoning feast)
   • Continuous source: Continuous exposure (contaminated water supply)
   • Intermittent source: Irregular exposure
2. Propagated (Person-to-person) epidemic: Spread from person to person; successive waves
3. Mixed epidemic: Begins as common-source, then spread by person-to-person

Part 3: Epidemiological Investigation of Rash and Fever in Children in a Block in Howrah [6 marks]

1. Verify the outbreak: Confirm cases exceed expected baseline; verify diagnosis clinically; rash + fever in children suggests viral exanthem (measles, rubella, chickenpox)
2. Confirm diagnosis: Examine representative cases; collect blood samples for serology (IgM for measles, rubella, varicella); throat swabs for viral culture; determine clinical case definition
3. Define a case: Any child in Block X, Howrah aged <15 years with fever + generalized maculopapular/vesicular rash with onset after [date]
4. Active case finding: School-based survey; anganwadi records; PHC attendance records; ASHA/ANM reports; house-to-house survey in affected villages
5. Descriptive epidemiology:
   • Time: Draw epidemic curve - if propagated = measles/chickenpox (successive waves 2-3 weeks apart)
   • Place: Village/school-wise distribution; spot map
   • Person: Age distribution (mainly <5 years = measles if unvaccinated); immunization status of cases
6. Investigate immunization status: Review immunization records; check MR/MMR vaccination coverage in the block; identify missed/left-out children
7. Analytical study (if needed): Unvaccinated vs. vaccinated - compare attack rates; Vaccine Efficacy = (AR unvaccinated - AR vaccinated) / AR unvaccinated × 100
8. Control measures:
   • Emergency mass vaccination (measles: MR campaign)
   • Isolate cases (school closure if large outbreak)
   • Vitamin A supplementation for measles cases
   • Report to IDSP and State Immunization Division

---

SHORT NOTES & EXPLANATIONS

---

1. "Bias and Confounding are NOT Synonymous" (Calcutta National Medical College)

• Definition: Bias is a systematic error in study design, data collection, or analysis that leads to a result that is systematically different from the truth
• Types: Selection bias, Information bias (recall, interviewer), Measurement bias, Lead-time bias
• Nature: It is an error introduced by the investigator or study design
• Correction: Difficult or impossible to correct after study is completed; must be prevented during design
• Direction: Can lead to over-estimation or under-estimation of true association

• Definition: A confounder is a third variable that is associated with both the exposure and the outcome (but is not an intermediate step) and distorts the true relationship
• Example: In a study of coffee (exposure) and heart disease (outcome), smoking is a confounder (smokers drink more coffee AND have more heart disease)
• Nature: Not an error; it is a real phenomenon in the population
• Correction: Can be controlled both in design (restriction, matching) and in analysis (stratification, multivariate regression)
• Direction: Can lead to over-estimation (positive confounding) or under-estimation (negative confounding) or even reversal of association (Simpson's paradox)

---

2. "Cohort Study: Gold Standard for Temporal Association BUT Inappropriate for Rare Disease Risk Factors" (College of Medicine & Sagore Dutta)

• In a cohort study, exposure is measured BEFORE the outcome occurs
• The study follows subjects forward in time from exposure to outcome
• Therefore, temporality (one of Bradford Hill's criteria) is definitively established
• Directly measures incidence in exposed and unexposed; calculates RR
• Example: Doll and Hill's cohort study of British doctors confirmed that smoking precedes lung cancer

• For a disease with very low incidence (e.g., 1 per 100,000 per year), an extremely large cohort is needed to observe even a small number of events
• Example: If incidence = 1/100,000/year and follow-up = 10 years, to detect 10 cases in exposed group: need 100,000 exposed individuals minimum
• This means: enormous sample size, enormous cost, enormous effort - making it practically infeasible
• Solution for rare diseases: Case-Control Study - starts with identified cases (regardless of how rare the disease is) and looks back at exposure

"For rare diseases, the case-control study is more efficient than the cohort study because one can study hundreds of cases of even a very rare disease." - Park

---

3. "Relative Risk (RR) and Attributable Risk (AR) are NOT Synonymous" (Midnapore Medical College)

• Definition: RR = Incidence in Exposed / Incidence in Unexposed
• Measures the strength of association between exposure and disease
• Indicates how many times more likely are exposed persons to develop disease compared to unexposed
• Use: Aetiological significance; used to assess causal relationship
• Example: RR of 10 for smoking and lung cancer = smokers are 10x more likely to get lung cancer

• Definition: AR = Incidence in Exposed - Incidence in Unexposed
• Measures the excess risk attributable to the exposure (absolute risk excess)
• Indicates how many additional cases occur due to the exposure
• Use: Public health significance; how many cases can be prevented by removing exposure?
• Example: AR = 3/1000/year - removing exposure would prevent 3 cases per 1000 persons per year

---

4. "Randomization and Blinding are NOT used for the Same Purpose in Clinical Trial" (Deben Mahata GMC&H)

• Purpose: To control confounding and selection bias at the time of group allocation
• How it works: Each participant has an equal probability of being assigned to either intervention group; this ensures the two groups are comparable at baseline for all known AND unknown confounders
• What it prevents: Pre-treatment differences between groups (confounding)
• When it acts: At the time of enrollment/allocation

• Purpose: To control information bias and performance bias after group allocation
• Types:
  • Single blind: Only participant is blinded (does not know which drug they receive)
  • Double blind: Both participant AND investigator are blinded
  • Triple blind: Also the outcome assessor and data analyst are blinded
• What it prevents: Change in behavior of participants due to knowledge of treatment group (performance bias); biased assessment of outcomes by investigator (detection/observer bias)
• When it acts: After allocation, during the trial

---

5. "Incidence is Preferred Over Prevalence in Studying Disease Causation" (JNM Kalyani)

• Measures new cases occurring in a disease-free population over a defined time period
• Reflects the probability or risk of developing the disease
• Is a direct measure of the rate at which disease occurs in a population
• Allows calculation of Relative Risk (used in cohort studies)
• Reflects the effect of causal factors that led to disease development

• Measures existing cases (both old and new) at a point in time
• Is affected by both incidence AND duration of disease
• Prevalence = Incidence × Duration (P ≈ I × D)
• A disease with high prevalence could be because:
  • High incidence (many new cases) - actual causation
  • OR long duration (patients live long with the disease) - not causation
• Cannot directly calculate RR from prevalence

• In studying causation, we need to know: "Who develops the disease and why?"
• Incidence directly measures this: who develops the disease among the disease-free population
• Prevalence mixes new and old cases; old cases may have changed their exposure behavior after diagnosis (recall bias, reverse causality)
• Example: Prevalence of diabetes appears higher in cities - but this may be because diabetics live longer with treatment (high duration), not because urban life causes more diabetes. Incidence study would reveal the true picture.

---

6. Relative Risk Calculation: Cohort Study of Silica Dust and Silicosis (Diamond Harbour GMC&H)

RR is the ratio of incidence of disease in exposed persons to incidence of disease in unexposed persons. RR = IR(exposed) / IR(unexposed). It measures the strength of association between exposure and outcome.

• Incidence in Exposed = 120/800 = 0.150 (15%)
• Incidence in Unexposed = 30/1200 = 0.025 (2.5%)
• RR = 0.150 / 0.025 = 6.0

1. Establishes temporal relationship (exposure before disease)
2. Directly calculates Relative Risk and Attributable Risk

---

7. "Sentinel Surveillance is Useful for Early Outbreak Detection" (MCK) [4 marks]

1. Strategic placement: Sentinel sites are placed at key points of disease entry (e.g., major hospitals, border health posts, high-burden areas) where diseases are first likely to be identified
2. Rapid reporting: Designated sentinel sites report promptly (daily/weekly); this is faster than routine passive surveillance which depends on busy practitioners voluntarily reporting
3. In-depth data: Sentinel sites collect detailed clinical and laboratory data (specimens) that passive surveillance cannot; allows confirmation of outbreak organisms, drug resistance patterns
4. Early warning: Detects rising trends before they become full outbreaks; allows rapid preventive action
5. Resource-efficient: Instead of monitoring all facilities (costly), key sentinel sites provide representative data at low cost

• IDSP (Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme) uses sentinel surveillance for influenza (flu sentinel sites), dengue, malaria
• Sentinel surveillance for HIV at ANC clinics
• Polio surveillance at sentinel acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) sites

---

8. "Disability and Handicap are NOT Synonymous" (SCCMCH)

• Any loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure or function
• At the level of organ/body system
• Example: Loss of vision in one eye after injury; amputation of a limb

• Any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being - resulting from impairment
• At the level of the individual (person's ability to function)
• Example: Unable to read normal print due to visual impairment; unable to walk normally after leg amputation

• A disadvantage for a given individual, resulting from impairment or disability, that limits or prevents the fulfillment of a role that is normal for that individual (depending on age, sex, social and cultural factors)
• At the level of society/social role
• Example: A pianist who loses a finger = handicapped for their professional role, though the disability may be minimal for a non-pianist

• A person can have impairment without disability (e.g., missing little toe - impairment but no functional disability for most activities)
• A person can have disability without handicap (e.g., wheelchair user who has full access to all social roles via adapted environment)
• A person can have impairment and disability but not handicap (e.g., controlled diabetes with no functional limitation)

---

9. "Case Fatality Rate (CFR) is a Misnomer" (SCCMCH)

1. It is a proportion, not a rate: A true rate must have a time dimension in the denominator (e.g., deaths per 1000 person-years). CFR has the number of cases (not person-time) in the denominator - making it a proportion, not a rate
2. "Fatality" is misused: The word "rate" implies change over time, but CFR measures the probability of death given disease at a single point - a static proportion
3. However: CFR is conventionally used and accepted in epidemiology as a measure of the severity/lethality of a disease; a high CFR indicates a highly lethal disease

---

10. "Population Attributable Risk" (KPC Jadavpur) [Short Note]

• Tells the public health importance of removing an exposure from the population
• Accounts for both the strength of association (RR) AND the prevalence of exposure in the population
• A factor with moderate RR but high prevalence may have a higher PAR than a factor with high RR but low prevalence

---

11. "Monitoring and Surveillance are NOT Synonymous" (Jhargram GMC&H)

• Systematic, ongoing collection, analysis, and interpretation of health data for the purpose of planning, implementing, and evaluating public health action
• Focuses on disease trends in the population
• Example: IDSP surveillance for dengue, malaria, tuberculosis
• Output: Identifies new cases, trends, outbreaks
• Action triggered by: alert thresholds being crossed

• The process of tracking the inputs, activities, and outputs of a health program to check whether it is running as planned
• Focuses on program performance
• Example: Monitoring immunization coverage rates monthly; monitoring TB treatment completion rates
• Output: Program coverage, adherence to protocol
• Action triggered by: deviation from targets

---

12. "Source and Reservoir of Disease are NOT the Same" (PC Sen)

• The immediate source from which the infectious agent passes to the host
• It is the person, animal, object, or substance from which the agent is directly transmitted
• May be different from the reservoir
• Example: A patient with typhoid excretes S. typhi in stool → contaminated water is the source → the patient is the reservoir

• The natural habitat in which the infectious agent lives, grows, and multiplies, and upon which it depends for its survival
• The reservoir sustains the agent between periods of infection in humans
• May be: humans (measles), animals (rabies), environment (tetanus - soil)

---

13. "5 F's in Fecal-Oral Disease Transmission" (PC Sen) [4 marks]

1. Fingers: Contaminated hands carrying fecal organisms directly to mouth; poor hand hygiene after defecation; children playing in contaminated soil and putting hands in mouth
2. Flies: Mechanical vectors that carry pathogens from human excreta to food/water; house flies contaminate food with organisms on their legs/body/vomitus
3. Food: Contaminated food (improperly cooked, contaminated during preparation or storage) - most common vehicle in food-borne outbreaks
4. Fluid (Water): Contaminated water supply (lack of treatment, cross-contamination with sewage); well water contaminated by nearby latrines; fecally contaminated surface water
5. Fields (Soil): Contaminated soil (open defecation); soil-transmitted helminths (hookworm, Ascaris, Trichuris)

---

14. "Random Sampling is Preferred Over Convenience Sampling in Epidemiological Study" (MCK) [4 marks]

• Every member of the target population has a known, non-zero probability of being selected
• Types: Simple random, Stratified, Cluster, Systematic, Multi-stage
• Gives a representative sample of the population
• Allows generalization of findings to the entire population (external validity)
• Allows calculation of sampling error and confidence intervals
• Unbiased - selection not influenced by researcher preference

• Participants are selected based on availability and accessibility (e.g., first 100 patients attending OPD)
• Quick and cheap
• Not representative: The sample may systematically differ from the population (e.g., hospital patients are sicker, wealthier, more educated than community)
• Cannot generalize findings to the larger population
• Selection bias is inherent

1. Eliminates selection bias
2. Representative of target population - allows generalization
3. Statistical inferences and hypothesis testing are valid only with probability samples
4. Confidence intervals can be calculated

---

CHAPTER 3: SCREENING FOR DISEASE

Define Screening vs. Case Finding; False Positive vs. False Negative for Fatal Disease (Bankura Sammilani) [2+4+4=10]

Part 1: Define Screening [2 marks]

"Screening is the presumptive identification of unrecognized disease or defect by the application of tests, examinations, or other procedures which can be applied rapidly."

• Applied to apparently healthy individuals in the community
• Not diagnostic - positive screening test followed by definitive diagnostic test
• Population-level, proactive
• Examples: Neonatal screening for hypothyroidism/PKU; mammography screening for breast cancer; PAP smear for cervical cancer

Difference: Screening vs. Case Finding

Part 2: For a Fatal Disease - False Positive or False Negative? [4 marks]

• False Negative = Test says "no disease" but person actually HAS the disease
• In a fatal disease (e.g., cancer, HIV, TB), a missed case means:
  • The patient remains undiagnosed
  • Treatment is delayed
  • The disease progresses and becomes more lethal/advanced
  • If infectious: disease continues to spread
  • The consequence is death of the patient - severe harm
• False Positive = Test says "disease present" but person is actually NORMAL
• Consequences: Patient undergoes unnecessary further tests (cost, anxiety, harm from diagnostic procedures) but is ultimately reassured when confirmatory tests are negative
• Harm is comparatively less severe - distress and cost, but not fatal

• For fatal diseases: prefer a test with high Sensitivity (detects almost all true cases; few false negatives)
• Accept a lower Specificity (more false positives) to ensure no case is missed
• Example: HIV screening test (ELISA) has high sensitivity (>99%); confirmed by Western Blot

---