Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26546333›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2015

Capacity building in national influenza laboratories--use of laboratory assessments to drive progress.

Lucinda E A Johnson, Sarah A Muir-Paulik, Pam Kennedy, Steven Lindstrom, Amanda Balish, Tricia Aden, Ann C Moen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Lucinda E A JohnsonInfluenza Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 30333, USA. lucindajohnson@hotmail.com.
Sarah A Muir-PaulikAssociation of Public Health Laboratories, Silver Spring, MD, USA. sarah.muir-paulik@hhs.gov.
Pam KennedyMcKing Consulting Corporation, Fairfax, VA, USA. iux5@cdc.gov.
Steven LindstromInfluenza Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 30333, USA. sql5@cdc.gov.
Amanda BalishInfluenza Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 30333, USA. zwt1@cdc.gov.
Tricia AdenBattelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH, USA. vpy3@cdc.gov.
Ann C MoenInfluenza Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 30333, USA. alc3@cdc.gov.

Funding

NCHM CDC HHS U60 HM000803NCHM CDC HHS U60HM000803
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaboratory testing is a fundamental component of influenza surveillance for detecting novel strains with pandemic potential and informing biannual vaccine strain selection. The United States (U.S.) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the auspices of its WHO Collaborating Center for Influenza, is one of the major public health agencies which provides support globally to build national capacity for influenza surveillance. Our main objective was to determine if laboratory assessments supported capacity building efforts for improved global influenza surveillance.

methodsIn 2010, 35 national influenza laboratories were assessed in 34 countries, using a standardized tool. Post-assessment, each laboratory received a report with a list of recommendations for improvement. Uptake of recommendations were reviewed 3.2 mean years after the initial assessments and categorized as complete, in-progress, no action or no update. This was a retrospective study; follow-up took place through routine project management rather than at a set time-point post-assessment. WHO data on National Influenza Centre (NIC) designation, External Quality Assessment Project (EQAP) participation and FluNet reporting was used to measure laboratory capacity longitudinally and independently of the assessments. All data was further stratified by World Bank country income category.

resultsAt follow-up, 81% of 614 recommendations were either complete (350) or in-progress (145) for 32 laboratories (91% response rate). The number of countries reporting to FluNet and the number of specimens they reported annually increased between 2005, when they were first funded by CDC, and 2010, the assessment year (p < 0.01). Improvements were also seen in EQAP participation and NIC designation over time and more so for low and lower-middle income countries.

conclusionsAssessments using a standardized tool have been beneficial to improving laboratory-based influenza surveillance. Specific recommendations helped countries identify and prioritize areas for improvement. Data from assessments helped CDC focus its technical assistance by country and region. Low and lower-middle income countries made greater improvements in their laboratories compared with upper-middle income countries. Future research could include an analysis of annual funding and technical assistance by country. Our approach serves as an example for capacity building for other diseases.

Indexed as

LaboratoriesCapacity BuildingCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.HumansInfluenza, HumanPublic HealthRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID26546333
PMCPMC4636816

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.