Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24736407›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Investigation of key interventions for shigellosis outbreak control in China.

Tianmu Chen, Ross Ka-Kit Leung, Zi Zhou, Ruchun Liu, Xixing Zhang, Lijie Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. An Outbreak of Multidrug-ResistantTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Molecular Mechanisms ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. ComputingInfectious Disease Modelling · 2022
    Article
  10. Review of fractional epidemic models.Applied mathematical modelling · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Optimal Control of Shigellosis with Cost-Effective Strategies.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2020
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tianmu ChenOffice for Disease Control and Emergency Response, Changsha Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Changsha, The People's Republic of China.
Ross Ka-Kit LeungStanley Ho Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, The People's Republic of China.
Zi ZhouSchool of Public Health, Xiamen University, Xiamen, The People's Republic of China.
Ruchun LiuOffice for Disease Control and Emergency Response, Changsha Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Changsha, The People's Republic of China.
Xixing ZhangOffice for Disease Control and Emergency Response, Changsha Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Changsha, The People's Republic of China.
Lijie ZhangChinese Field Epidemiology Training Program, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, The People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Shigellosis is a major public health concern in China, where waterborne disease outbreaks are common. Shigellosis-containing strategies, mostly single or multiple interventions, are implemented by primary-level health departments. Systematic assessment of the effectiveness of these measures is scarce. To estimate the efficacy of commonly used intervention strategies, we developed a Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious/Asymptomatic-Recovered-Water model. No intervention was predicted to result in a total attack rate (TAR) of 90% of the affected population (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86.65-92.80) and duration of outbreak (DO) of 89 days, and the use of single-intervention strategies can be futile or even counter-productive. Prophylactics and water disinfection did not improve TAR or DO. School closure for up to 3 weeks did not help but only increased DO. Isolation alone significantly increased DO. Only antibiotics treatment could shorten the DO to 35 days with TAR unaffected. We observed that these intervention effects were additive when in combined usage under most circumstances. Combined intervention "Isolation+antibiotics+prophylactics+water disinfection" was predicted to result in the lowest TAR (41.9%, 95%CI: 36.97-47.04%) and shortest DO (28 days). Our actual Shigellosis control implementation that also included school closure for 1 week, attained comparable results and the modeling produced an epidemic curve of Shigellosis highly similar to our actual outbreak data. This lends a strong support to the reality of our model that provides a possible reference for public health professionals to evaluate their strategies towards Shigellosis control.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksEarly Medical InterventionAlgorithmsChinaComputer SimulationDysentery, BacillaryHumansModels, TheoreticalPopulation SurveillanceSeasons

Identifiers

PMID24736407
PMCPMC3988114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.