ArticleEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2017
PRECEPT: an evidence assessment framework for infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control.
Article in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pre-existing health conditions and severe COVID-19 outcomes: an umbrella review approach and meta-analysis of global evidence.BMC medicine · 2021Pooled it
- The effectiveness of syndromic surveillance for the early detection of waterborne outbreaks: a systematic review.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Prevalence of mental disorders in young refugees and asylum seekers in European Countries: a systematic review.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2019Pooled it
- Sepsis prediction during outbreaks at neonatal intensive care units through body surface screening for Gram-negative bacteria: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC research notes · 2018Pooled it
- Molecular epidemiology of fluoroquinolone resistant Salmonella in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Conducting evidence synthesis and developing evidence-based advice in public health and beyond: A scoping review and map of methods guidance.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- Anxiety among children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: a systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- [Evidence syntheses in public health: An overview].Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen · 2022Article
- [COVID-19 patients in Germany: exposure risks and associated factors for hospitalization and severe disease].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2021Review
- Experiences from the Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at Robert Koch Institute.Journal of health monitoring · 2020Article
- Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews.F1000Research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decisions in public health should be based on the best available evidence, reviewed and appraised using a rigorous and transparent methodology. The Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT) defined a methodology for evaluating and grading evidence in infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control that takes different domains and question types into consideration. The methodology rates evidence in four domains: disease burden, risk factors, diagnostics and intervention. The framework guiding it has four steps going from overarching questions to an evidence statement. In step 1, approaches for identifying relevant key areas and developing specific questions to guide systematic evidence searches are described. In step 2, methodological guidance for conducting systematic reviews is provided; 15 study quality appraisal tools are proposed and an algorithm is given for matching a given study design with a tool. In step 3, a standardised evidence-grading scheme using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) methodology is provided, whereby findings are documented in evidence profiles. Step 4 consists of preparing a narrative evidence summary. Users of this framework should be able to evaluate and grade scientific evidence from the four domains in a transparent and reproducible way.
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.