Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30208032›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2018

Contact tracing performance during the Ebola epidemic in Liberia, 2014-2015.

Krista C Swanson, Chiara Altare, Chea Sanford Wesseh, Tolbert Nyenswah, Tashrik Ahmed, Nir Eyal, Esther L Hamblion, Justin Lessler, David H Peters, Mathias Altmann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 122 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Krista C SwansonLiberia Country Office, Action Contre la Faim, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3829-5348
Chiara AltareLiberia Country Office, Action Contre la Faim, Paris, France.
Chea Sanford WessehPublic Health Emergencies, Liberia Ministry of Health, Monrovia, Liberia.
Tolbert NyenswahPublic Health Emergencies, Liberia Ministry of Health, Monrovia, Liberia.
Tashrik AhmedBloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Nir EyalHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Esther L HamblionLiberia Country Office, World Health Organization, Monrovia, Liberia.ORCID 0000-0003-4250-3696
Justin LesslerBloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
David H PetersBloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8377-3444
Mathias AltmannLiberia Country Office, Action Contre la Faim, Paris, France.
Action Contre la Faim · FRJohns Hopkins University · USUniversity of Liberia · LRHarvard University · US

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring the Ebola virus disease (EVD) epidemic in Liberia, contact tracing was implemented to rapidly detect new cases and prevent further transmission. We describe the scope and characteristics of contact tracing in Liberia and assess its performance during the 2014-2015 EVD epidemic. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe performed a retrospective descriptive analysis of data collection forms for contact tracing conducted in six counties during June 2014-July 2015. EVD case counts from situation reports in the same counties were used to assess contact tracing coverage and sensitivity. Contacts who presented with symptoms and/or died, and monitoring was stopped, were classified as "potential cases". Positive predictive value (PPV) was defined as the proportion of traced contacts who were identified as potential cases. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify characteristics among potential cases. We analyzed 25,830 contact tracing records for contacts who had monitoring initiated or were last exposed between June 4, 2014 and July 13, 2015. Contact tracing was initiated for 26.7% of total EVD cases and detected 3.6% of all new cases during this period. Eighty-eight percent of contacts completed monitoring, and 334 contacts were identified as potential cases (PPV = 1.4%). Potential cases were more likely to be detected early in the outbreak; hail from rural areas; report multiple exposures and symptoms; have household contact or direct bodily or fluid contact; and report nausea, fever, or weakness compared to contacts who completed monitoring. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Contact tracing was a critical intervention in Liberia and represented one of the largest contact tracing efforts during an epidemic in history. While there were notable improvements in implementation over time, these data suggest there were limitations to its performance-particularly in urban districts and during peak transmission. Recommendations for improving performance include integrated surveillance, decentralized management of multidisciplinary teams, comprehensive protocols, and community-led strategies.

Indexed as

Contact TracingDisease Transmission, InfectiousEpidemicsFemaleHemorrhagic Fever, EbolaHumansLiberiaMalePredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID30208032
PMCPMC6152989
OpenAlexW2889977852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.