ArticlePloS one2014
Isolation facilities for highly infectious diseases in Europe--a cross-sectional analysis in 16 countries.
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 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost effects of using point-of-care multiplex PCR for high consequence infectious diseases suspect cases.Infection · 2026Article
- Therapeutic advances in Marburg virus disease: from experimental treatments to vaccine development.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- A narrative review of high-level isolation unit operational and infrastructure features.BMJ global health · 2023Review
- Preparing for patients with high-consequence infectious diseases: Example of a high-level isolation unit.PloS one · 2022Article
- Impact of air-handling system exhaust failure on dissemination pattern of simulant pathogen particles in a clinical biocontainment unit.Indoor air · 2019Article
- Highly infectious diseases in the Mediterranean Sea area: Inventory of isolation capabilities and recommendations for appropriate isolation.New microbes and new infections · 2018Article
- The Utility of Preliminary Patient Evaluation in a Febrile Respiratory Infectious Disease Unit outside the Emergency Department.Journal of Korean medical science · 2017Article
- Sustainability of High-Level Isolation Capabilities among US Ebola Treatment Centers.Emerging infectious diseases · 2017Article
- Initial Costs of Ebola Treatment Centers in the United States.Emerging infectious diseases · 2016Article
- Lassa fever: another threat from West Africa.Disaster and military medicine · 2016Review
- Preparedness of healthcare workers at French Ebola referral centres.New microbes and new infections · 2015Article
- [Specialized clinical facilities for the treatment of highly contagious, life-threatening infectious diseases : a comparison between Germany and 15 European nations].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2015Article
- Preparedness of institutions around the world for managing patients with Ebola virus disease: an infection control readiness checklist.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2015Article
- Preparedness for admission of patients with suspected Ebola virus disease in European hospitals: a survey, August-September 2014.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHighly Infectious Diseases (HIDs) are (i) easily transmissible form person to person; (ii) cause a life-threatening illness with no or few treatment options; and (iii) pose a threat for both personnel and the public. Hence, even suspected HID cases should be managed in specialised facilities minimizing infection risks but allowing state-of-the-art critical care. Consensus statements on the operational management of isolation facilities have been published recently. The study presented was set up to compare the operational management, resources, and technical equipment among European isolation facilities. Due to differences in geography, population density, and national response plans it was hypothesized that adherence to recommendations will vary. METHODS AND
findingsUntil mid of 2010 the European Network for Highly Infectious Diseases conducted a cross-sectional analysis of isolation facilities in Europe, recruiting 48 isolation facilities in 16 countries. Three checklists were disseminated, assessing 44 items and 148 specific questions. The median feedback rate for specific questions was 97.9% (n = 47/48) (range: n = 7/48 (14.6%) to n = 48/48 (100%). Although all facilities enrolled were nominated specialised facilities' serving countries or regions, their design, equipment and personnel management varied. Eighteen facilities fulfilled the definition of a High Level Isolation Unit'. In contrast, 24 facilities could not operate independently from their co-located hospital, and five could not ensure access to equipment essential for infection control. Data presented are not representative for the EU in general, as only 16/27 (59.3%) of all Member States agreed to participate. Another limitation of this study is the time elapsed between data collection and publication; e.g. in Germany one additional facility opened in the meantime.
conclusionThere are disparities both within and between European countries regarding the design and equipment of isolation facilities. With regard to the International Health Regulations, terminology, capacities and equipment should be standardised.
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.