Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26656673›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology reviews2016

Bioterrorism and the Role of the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory.

Elizabeth Wagar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

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

  1. Antimicrobial Treatment and Prophylaxis of Plague: Recommendations for Naturally Acquired Infections and Bioterrorism Response.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2021
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Identification ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author.

Elizabeth WagarUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA EAWagar@mdanderson.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regular review of the management of bioterrorism is essential for maintaining readiness for these sporadically occurring events. This review provides an overview of the history of biological disasters and bioterrorism. I also discuss the recent recategorization of tier 1 agents by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Laboratory Response Network (LRN), and specific training and readiness processes and programs, such as the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Laboratory Preparedness Exercise (LPX). LPX examined the management of cultivable bacterial vaccine and attenuated strains of tier 1 agents or close mimics. In the LPX program, participating laboratories showed improvement in the level of diagnosis required and referral of isolates to an appropriate reference laboratory. Agents which proved difficult to manage in sentinel laboratories included the more fastidious Gram-negative organisms, especially Francisella tularensis and Burkholderia spp. The recent Ebola hemorrhagic fever epidemic provided a check on LRN safety processes. Specific guidelines and recommendations for laboratory safety and risk assessment in the clinical microbiology are explored so that sentinel laboratories can better prepare for the next biological disaster.

Indexed as

Biological Warfare AgentsBioterrorismCivil DefenseClinical Laboratory TechniquesCommunicable DiseasesHumansPoisoningBiological Warfare Agents

Identifiers

PMID26656673
PMCPMC4771219

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.