Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28573629›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2017

Evaluation of Ebola Virus Countermeasures in Guinea Pigs.

Andrea Marzi

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andrea MarziLaboratory of Virology, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Hamilton, MT, USA. marzia@niaid.nih.gov.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases · US

Funding

Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers: Disease Modeling and TransmissionZIAAI001089 · NIAID · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES · PI FELDMANN, HEINRICH · 2009 to 2025
$50.7M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 AI999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ebola virus (EBOV) pathology in humans remains incompletely understood; therefore, a number of rodent and nonhuman primate (NHP) models have been established to study the disease caused by this virus. While the macaque model most accurately recapitulates human disease, rodent models, which display only certain aspects of human disease but are more cost-effective, are widely used for initial screens during EBOV countermeasure development. In particular, mice and guinea pigs were among the first species used for the efficacy testing of EBOV vaccines and therapeutics. While mice have low predictive value, guinea pigs have proven to be a more reliable predictor for the evaluation of countermeasures in NHPs. In addition, guinea pigs are larger in size compared to mice, allowing for more frequent collection of blood samples at larger volumes. However, guinea pigs have the disadvantage that there is only a limited pool of immunological tools available to characterize host responses to vaccination, treatment and infection. In this chapter, the efficacy testing of an EBOV vaccine and a therapeutic in the guinea pig model are described.

Indexed as

AnimalsDisease Models, AnimalEbola VaccinesEbolavirusGuinea PigsHemorrhagic Fever, EbolaHumansMiceVaccinationEbola VaccinesAnimal modelCountermeasuresEbola virusGuinea pigsIn vivo experimentTherapeuticsVaccines

Identifiers

PMID28573629
PMCPMC6397642
OpenAlexW2620952221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.