ArticlePLoS pathogens2015
Effectively Communicating the Uncertainties Surrounding Ebola Virus Transmission.
Article in PLoS pathogens, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparative analysis of experienced uncertainties in relation to risk communication during COVID19: a four-country study.Globalization and health · 2022Article
- Luminore CopperTouch Surface Coating Effectively Inactivates SARS-CoV-2, Ebola Virus, and Marburg VirusAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2021Article
- Analysis of Emergency Department Visits and Hospital Activity during Influenza Season, COVID-19 Epidemic, and Lockdown Periods in View of Managing a Future Disaster Risk: A Multicenter Observational Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Observational
- Luminore CopperTouch™ surface coating effectively inactivates SARS-CoV-2, Ebola and Marburg viruses in vitro.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2020Article
- Editorial: the airborne microbiome - implications for aerosol transmission and infection control - special issue.BMC infectious diseases · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current Ebola virus outbreak has highlighted the uncertainties surrounding many aspects of Ebola virus virology, including routes of transmission. The scientific community played a leading role during the outbreak-potentially, the largest of its kind-as many of the questions surrounding ebolaviruses have only been interrogated in the laboratory. Scientists provided an invaluable resource for clinicians, public health officials, policy makers, and the lay public in understanding the progress of Ebola virus disease and the continuing outbreak. Not all of the scientific communication, however, was accurate or effective. There were multiple instances of published articles during the height of the outbreak containing potentially misleading scientific language that spurred media overreaction and potentially jeopardized preparedness and policy decisions at critical points. Here, we use articles declaring the potential for airborne transmission of Ebola virus as a case study in the inaccurate reporting of basic science, and we provide recommendations for improving the communication about unknown aspects of disease during public health crises.
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.