ReviewEmerging infectious diseases2003
Automated laboratory reporting of infectious diseases in a climate of bioterrorism.
Review in Emerging infectious diseases, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Full impact of laboratory information system requires direct use by clinical staff: cluster randomized controlled trial.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIATrial
- Cloud Computing for Infectious Disease Surveillance and Control: Development and Evaluation of a Hospital Automated Laboratory Reporting System.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- Experience of delivering laboratory reports as short message service to patients: A one-year experience.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2016Article
- Use of Internet Search Queries to Enhance Surveillance of Foodborne Illness.Emerging infectious diseases · 2015Article
- Government leadership in addressing public health priorities: strides and delays in electronic laboratory reporting in the United States.American journal of public health · 2014Article
- Completeness of hepatitis, brucellosis, syphilis, measles and HIV/AIDS surveillance in Izmir, Turkey.BMC public health · 2010Article
- A comparison of the completeness and timeliness of automated electronic laboratory reporting and spontaneous reporting of notifiable conditions.American journal of public health · 2008Article
- A web-based laboratory information system to improve quality of care of tuberculosis patients in Peru: functional requirements, implementation and usage statistics.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2007Article
- Discernment between deliberate and natural infectious disease outbreaks.Epidemiology and infection · 2007Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While newly available electronic transmission methods can increase timeliness and completeness of infectious disease reports, limitations of this technology may unintentionally compromise detection of, and response to, bioterrorism and other outbreaks. We reviewed implementation experiences for five electronic laboratory systems and identified problems with data transmission, sensitivity, specificity, and user interpretation. The results suggest a need for backup transmission methods, validation, standards, preserving human judgment in the process, and provider and end-user involvement. As illustrated, challenges encountered in deployment of existing electronic laboratory reporting systems could guide further refinement and advances in infectious disease surveillance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.