Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26397699›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Communicable Diseases Prioritized According to Their Public Health Relevance, Sweden, 2013.

Viktor Dahl, Anders Tegnell, Anders Wallensten

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Prioritisation of infectious diseases from a public health perspective: a multi-criteria decision analysis study, France, 2024.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Lyme neuroborreliosis epidemiology in Sweden 2010 to 2014: clinical microbiology laboratories are a better data source than the hospital discharge diagnosis register.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2019
    Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Viktor DahlThe Public Health Agency of Sweden, Stockholm, Sweden; European Programme for Intervention Epidemiology Training (EPIET), European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Stockholm, Sweden.
Anders TegnellThe Public Health Agency of Sweden, Stockholm, Sweden.
Anders WallenstenThe Public Health Agency of Sweden, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To establish strategic priorities for the Public Health Agency of Sweden we prioritized pathogens according to their public health relevance in Sweden in order to guide resource allocation. We then compared the outcome to ongoing surveillance. We used a modified prioritization method developed at the Robert Koch Institute in Germany. In a Delphi process experts scored pathogens according to ten variables. We ranked the pathogens according to the total score and divided them into four priority groups. We then compared the priority groups to self-reported time spent on surveillance by epidemiologists and ongoing programmes for surveillance through mandatory and/or voluntary notifications and for surveillance of typing results. 106 pathogens were scored. The result of the prioritization process was similar to the outcome of the prioritization in Germany. Common pathogens such as calicivirus and Influenza virus as well as blood-borne pathogens such as human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B and C virus, gastro-intestinal infections such as Campylobacter and Salmonella and vector-borne pathogens such as Borrelia were all in the highest priority group. 63% of time spent by epidemiologists on surveillance was spent on pathogens in the highest priority group and all pathogens in the highest priority group, except for Borrelia and varicella-zoster virus, were under surveillance through notifications. Ten pathogens in the highest priority group (Borrelia, calicivirus, Campylobacter, Echinococcus multilocularis, hepatitis C virus, HIV, respiratory syncytial virus, SARS- and MERS coronavirus, tick-borne encephalitis virus and varicella-zoster virus) did not have any surveillance of typing results. We will evaluate the possibilities of surveillance for the pathogens in the highest priority group where we currently do not have any ongoing surveillance and evaluate the need of surveillance for the pathogens from the low priority group where there is ongoing surveillance in order to focus our work on the pathogens with the highest relevance.

Indexed as

Public Health SurveillanceCommunicable DiseasesGermanyHealth PrioritiesHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareSweden

Identifiers

PMID26397699
PMCPMC4580468

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.