ReviewOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2015
Redefining disease emergence to improve prioritization and macro-ecological analyses.
Review in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Privacy, Exploitation and Global Disease Surveillance: Can We Justly Prevent the Next Pandemic?Public health ethics · 2025Article
- Emerging infectious zoonotic diseases: The neglected role of food animals.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Review
- Role of host genetic diversity for susceptibility-to-infection in the evolution of virulence of a plant virus.Virus evolution · 2019Article
- New and emerging infectious diseases (Ebola, Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome coronavirus, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, Candida auris): Focus on environmental survival and germicide susceptibility.American journal of infection control · 2019Review
- Ancient oncogenesis, infection and human evolution.Evolutionary applications · 2017Review
- Emergence of tick-borne diseases at northern latitudes in Europe: a comparative approach.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Microbial infections are as old as the hosts they sicken, but interest in the emergence of pathogens and the diseases they cause has been accelerating rapidly. The term 'emerging infectious disease' was coined in the mid-1900s to describe changes in disease dynamics in the modern era. Both the term and the phenomena it is meant to characterize have evolved and diversified over time, leading to inconsistencies and confusion. Here, we review the evolution of the term 'emerging infectious disease' (EID) in the literature as applied to human hosts. We examine the pathways (e.g., speciation or strain differentiation in the causative agent vs. rapid geographic expansion of an existing pathogen) by which diseases emerge. We propose a new framework for disease and pathogen emergence to improve prioritization. And we illustrate how the operational definition of an EID affects conclusions concerning the pathways by which diseases emerge and the ecological and socioeconomic drivers that elicit emergence. As EIDs appear to be increasing globally, and resources for science level off or decline, the research community is pushed to prioritize its focus on the most threatening diseases, riskiest potential pathogens, and the places they occur. The working definition of emerging infectious diseases and pathogens plays a crucial role in prioritization, but we argue that the current definitions may be impeding these efforts. We propose a new framework for classifying pathogens and diseases as "emerging" that distinguishes EIDs from emerging pathogens and novel potential pathogens. We suggest prioritization of: 1) EIDs for adaptation and mitigation, 2) emerging pathogens for preventive measures, and 3) novel potential pathogens for intensive surveillance.
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.