title: Predictive value of a history of varicella infection.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To determine whether a history of previous varicella infection provides a reliable marker for prior infection.
  
  
  METHODS
  MEDLINE was searched from January 1996 to May 2002 using the MeSH headings "varicella," "chickenpox" and "medical history taking." Recommendations in this paper are based on evidence from well designed cross-sectional studies.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Serologic testing is advised, rather than presumptive vaccination, for those with a negative or uncertain history of varicella; most will be immune. For those with a positive history of varicella, the advice given depends on the population. For populations at higher risk of varicella infection (eg, health care workers, pregnant women), routine serum testing is recommended. For low-risk populations, physicians could accept a positive history of varicella as a reliable indicator of immunity.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Most studies found that patients' history of varicella had a high positive predictive value and a low negative predictive value. These findings suggest that a positive history of varicella is a reliable marker of disease while a negative history does not not predict lack of immunity.
authors.affiliation: Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Ont.
authors.forename: Candice N
authors.initials: CN
authors.lastname: Holmes
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D002644:Chickenpox / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000517:prevention & control; D002648:Child; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008487:Medical History Taking; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D011247:Pregnancy; D011295:Prenatal Care; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D016036:Seroepidemiologic Studies
references.citation: Can Fam Physician. 2000 Oct;46:1975-7
references.pmid: 11072577
references.citation: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;19(11):823-4
references.pmid: 9831936
references.citation: MMWR Recomm Rep. 1996 Jul 12;45(RR-11):1-36
references.pmid: 8668119
references.citation: Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2001 Nov;20(11):1087-8
references.pmid: 11734718
references.citation: Ann Emerg Med. 1999 May;33(5):516-9
references.pmid: 10216327
references.citation: Occup Med (Lond). 1996 Aug;46(4):289-92
references.pmid: 8854707
references.citation: J Perinatol. 1996 Jan-Feb;16(1):35-8
references.pmid: 8869538
references.citation: Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1998 Feb;17(2):120-5
references.pmid: 9493807
references.citation: Mil Med. 1998 Sep;163(9):631-4
references.pmid: 9753992
references.citation: BMJ. 1997 Jan 18;314(7075):226
references.pmid: 9022462
references.citation: JAMA. 1997 Nov 12;278(18):1520-2
references.pmid: 9363973
references.citation: J Am Board Fam Pract. 1998 Jul-Aug;11(4):296-306
references.pmid: 9719352
references.citation: J Adolesc Health. 2001 Jan;28(1):26-9
references.pmid: 11137902
references.citation: Med J Aust. 2001 Feb 5;174(3):153
references.pmid: 11247626
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Apr;91(4):519-28
references.pmid: 9540934