ArticlePloS one2018
An evaluation of emergency guidelines issued by the World Health Organization in response to four infectious disease outbreaks.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Recommendations for Safe Dental Care: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines in the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Assessing the Quality of World Health Organisation Guidelines during Health Emergencies: A Domain-Based Analysis.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessing the quality and completeness of reporting in health systems guidance for pandemics using the AGREE-HS tool.Journal of global health · 2023Article
- Implementation of a coronavirus disease 2019 infection prevention and control training program in a low-middle income country.JBI evidence implementation · 2022Article
- Machine learning for emerging infectious disease field responses.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- QUALITY APPRAISAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES ON PROVISION OF DENTAL SERVICES DURING THE FIRST MONTHS OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.The journal of evidence-based dental practice · 2021Article
- Codevelopment of COVID-19 infection prevention and control guidelines in lower-middle-income countries: the 'SPRINT' principles.BMJ global health · 2021Article
- Getting trustworthy guidelines into the hands of decision-makers and supporting their consideration of contextual factors for implementation globally: recommendation mapping of COVID-19 guidelines.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- Scope, quality, and inclusivity of clinical guidelines produced early in the covid-19 pandemic: rapid review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Review
- A quality evaluation of guidelines on five different viruses causing public health emergencies of international concern.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Review
- An evaluation of WHO emergency guidelines for Zika virus disease.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2019Article
- Precision public health to inhibit the contagion of disease and move toward a future in which microbes spread health.BMC infectious diseases · 2019Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe production of high-quality guidelines in response to public health emergencies poses challenges for the World Health Organization (WHO). The urgent need for guidance and the paucity of structured scientific data on emerging diseases hinder the formulation of evidence-informed recommendations using standard methods and procedures.
objectivesIn the context of the response to recent public health emergencies, this project aimed to describe the information products produced by WHO and assess the quality and trustworthiness of a subset of these products classified as guidelines.
methodsWe selected four recent infectious disease emergencies: outbreaks of avian influenza A-H1N1 virus (2009) and H7N9 virus (2013), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) (2013), and Ebola virus disease (EVD) (2014 to 2016). We analyzed the development and publication processes and evaluated the quality of emergency guidelines using AGREE-II.
resultsWe included 175 information products of which 87 were guidelines. These products demonstrated variable adherence to WHO publication requirements including the listing of external contributors, management of declarations of interest, and entry into WHO's public database of publications. For guidelines, the methods for development were incompletely reported; WHO's quality assurance process was rarely used; systematic or other evidence reviews were infrequently referenced; external peer review was not performed; and they scored poorly with AGREE II, particularly for rigour of development and editorial independence.
conclusionsOur study suggests that WHO guidelines produced in the context of a public health emergency can be improved upon, helping to assure the trustworthiness and utility of WHO information products in future emergencies.
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.