Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29167287›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2018

U.S. High-Level Isolation Unit Clinical Laboratory Capabilities Update.

Jocelyn J Herstein, Peter C Iwen, Katelyn C Jelden, Paul D Biddinger, Shawn G Gibbs, Aurora B Le, Angela L Hewlett, John J Lowe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

8 authors.

Jocelyn J HersteinDepartment of Environmental, Agricultural, and Occupational Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA jocelyn.herstein@unmc.edu.
Peter C IwenDepartment of Pathology and Microbiology, College of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Katelyn C JeldenCollege of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Paul D BiddingerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Division of Emergency Preparedness, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Shawn G GibbsDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health, Indiana University School of Public Health, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.
Aurora B LeDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health, Indiana University School of Public Health, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.
Angela L HewlettDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
John J LoweDepartment of Environmental, Agricultural, and Occupational Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In late 2014, 56 hospitals in the United States were designated by state and federal public health authorities as specially designed high-level isolation units (HLIUs) equipped with advanced infrastructure, laboratory capabilities, and trained staff to care for patients with highly hazardous communicable diseases (HHCDs), such as Ebola virus disease. This survey describes the clinical laboratory support capabilities of U.S. HLIUs, including the specific test menus that HLIUs have identified to safely manage HHCD patients and the locations where such testing would be performed. In spring 2016, a survey was electronically distributed, as a fillable pdf file, to the 56 U.S. HLIUs. Site representatives completed the surveys, and data were coded and analyzed in an electronic spreadsheet, using descriptive statistics. Thirty-six HLIUs (64%) responded, and 33 completed the laboratory capabilities section. Thirty-one HLIUs (94%) had performed risk analyses for all laboratory procedures and equipment. Twenty-nine (88%) had decontamination procedures specified for all laboratory equipment used for patients with suspected or confirmed HHCDs. On-site laboratories in 27 HLIUs (81%) had the capacity to inventory and to securely store HHCD patient specimens. Ten HLIUs (31%) had at least one test they would conduct within the patient isolation room. The high-risk nature of HHCDs and the occupational exposures that may occur in clinical laboratories demand advanced preparation and risk assessment of work practices, laboratory equipment, and instrumentation by HLIU laboratories. Although risk analyses of clinical laboratory testing and equipment that HLIUs have conducted have likely focused on those for Ebola virus, HLIUs must be prepared to revise their current procedures for other HHCDs.

Indexed as

Clinical Laboratory TechniquesCommunicable DiseasesDecontaminationHumansInfection ControlLaboratories, HospitalOccupational ExposurePatient IsolationRisk AssessmentSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Statesbiocontainmentdiagnostic laboratory testingEbola virus diseasehighly infectious disease

Identifiers

PMID29167287
PMCPMC5786736

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.