ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2017
Case study: design and implementation of training for scientists deploying to Ebola diagnostic field laboratories in Sierra Leone: October 2014 to February 2016.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The practice of evaluating epidemic response in humanitarian and low-income settings: a systematic review.BMC medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Invisible and undervalued: A qualitative study of laboratory workers' experiences and perceptions of laboratory strengthening in Sierra Leone.African journal of laboratory medicine · 2024Article
- Existing operational standards for field deployments of rapid response mobile laboratories: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Efficiency of Field Laboratories for Ebola Virus Disease Outbreak during Chronic Insecurity, Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2018-2020.Emerging infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Best practice assessment of disease modelling for infectious disease outbreaks.Epidemiology and infection · 2018Review
- The 2013-2016 Ebola epidemic: multidisciplinary success conceals a missed opportunity.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As part of the UK response to the 2013-2016 Ebola virus disease (EVD) epidemic in West Africa, Public Health England (PHE) were tasked with establishing three field Ebola virus (EBOV) diagnostic laboratories in Sierra Leone by the UK Department for International Development (DFID). These provided diagnostic support to the Ebola Treatment Centre (ETC) facilities located in Kerry Town, Makeni and Port Loko. The Novel and Dangerous Pathogens (NADP) Training group at PHE, Porton Down, designed and implemented a pre-deployment Ebola diagnostic laboratory training programme for UK volunteer scientists being deployed to the PHE EVD laboratories. Here, we describe the training, workflow and capabilities of these field laboratories for use in response to disease epidemics and in epidemiological surveillance. We discuss the training outcomes, the laboratory outputs, lessons learned and the legacy value of the support provided. We hope this information will assist in the recruitment and training of staff for future responses and in the design and implementation of rapid deployment diagnostic field laboratories for future outbreaks of high consequence pathogens.This article is part of the themed issue 'The 2013-2016 West African Ebola epidemic: data, decision-making and disease control'.
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.