ReviewEpidemiology and infection2007
Discernment between deliberate and natural infectious disease outbreaks.
Review in Epidemiology and infection, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Risk Analysis Tools for Differentiating Unnatural From Natural Epidemics.Military medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Mathematical models and analysis tools for risk assessment of unnatural epidemics: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- COVID-19 is a natural infectious disease.Journal of biosafety and biosecurity · 2022Review
- The Application of Projection Word Embeddings on Medical Records Scoring System.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Biothreat & One Health: Current scenario & way forward.The Indian journal of medical research · 2021Review
- Analysis of COVID-19 outbreak origin in China in 2019 using differentiation method for unusual epidemiological events.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2021Article
- Natural outbreaks and bioterrorism: How to deal with the two sides of the same coin?Journal of global health · 2020Review
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence Learning Semantics via External Resources for Classifying Diagnosis Codes in Discharge Notes.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Article
- Forensic Approaches to Detect Possible Agents of Bioterror.Microbiology spectrum · 2017Review
- Whole-genome sequencing in outbreak analysis.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2015Review
- State-of-the-art in biosafety and biosecurity in European countries.Archivum immunologiae et therapiae experimentalis · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Public health authorities should be vigilant to the potential for outbreaks deliberately caused by biological agents (bioterrorism). Such events require a rapid response and incorporation of non-traditional partners for disease investigation and outbreak control. The astute application of infectious disease epidemiological principles can promote an enhanced index of suspicion for such events. We discuss epidemiological indicators that should be considered during outbreak investigations, and also examine their application during bioterrorism incidents, an accidental release of an agent, outbreaks of infections that were alleged to have been deliberately initiated, and a model scenario. The Grunow & Finke epidemiological assessment tool is used to examine these historical events and the model scenario. The results received from this analysis, coupled with an understanding of epidemiological clues to unnatural events, and knowledge of how to manage such events, can aid in the improved response and resolution of epidemics.
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.