ArticleHealth security
Screening for Anthrax Postexposure Antibiotic Prophylaxis-The New York City Approach.
Article in Health security. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Individuals exposed to spores of B. anthracis must take a course of antibiotics as postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) to prevent inhalation anthrax. During an anthrax event, public health authorities are responsible for conducting dispensing operations to offer PEP to exposed individuals. Jurisdictions have developed antibiotic PEP screening algorithms to determine which antibiotic is appropriate for each individual. Variability exists with regard to screening questions and dispensing decisions based on responses to those questions. It is likely that individuals with similar profiles will receive different antibiotics based solely on the jurisdiction in which they receive their PEP. This lack of consistency among jurisdictions may lead to a loss of confidence in the public health response among the public, the healthcare community, the media, and government leaders, which could compromise the response itself. We present New York City's planning assumptions, screening algorithm, a rationale for our screening questions, and our reasons for excluding screening questions asked by other jurisdictions. We hope that our efforts may assist others in developing and refining their algorithms and associated public messaging and encourage standardization with neighboring jurisdictions where appropriate.
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.