ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2015
[Specialized clinical facilities for the treatment of highly contagious, life-threatening infectious diseases : a comparison between Germany and 15 European nations].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients suffering from highly contagious, life-threatening infections should be treated in specialized clinical facilities that follow the highest infection control standards. Consensus statements defining technical equipment and operational procedures have been published in recent years, but the level of adherence to these has not been evaluated.
methodsData summarized here comparing German and European isolation facilities are the partial results of a cross-sectional analysis conducted by the "European Network for Highly Infectious Diseases" that included 48 clinical care facilities in 16 European nations. Data collection was conducted using questionnaires and on-site visits, focussing on aspects of infrastructure, technical equipment, and the availability of trained personnel.
resultsAlthough all centres enrolled were listed as "isolation units", all aspects evaluated differed broadly. Eighteen facilities fulfilled the definition of a 'High Level Isolation Unit', as 6/8 enrolled German facilities did. In contrast, 24 facilities could not operate independently from their co-located hospital. DISCUSSION: Within and between nations contributing data disparities regarding the fulfilment of guidelines published were seen. German isolation facilities mostly fulfilled all criteria evaluated and performed on a high technical level. However, data presented do not reflect the current situation in Germany due to the time that has elapsed since the study was conducted. Hence, longitudinal data collection and harmonisation of terminology at least on national level needs to be implemented.
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.