Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30376094›Full record

ReviewClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2018

A Review of the Most Commonly Used Methods for Sample Collection in Environmental Surveillance of Poliovirus.

Graciela Matrajt, Brienna Naughton, Ananda S Bandyopadhyay, John Scott Meschke

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Recovering coronavirus from large volumes of water.The Science of the total environment · 2021
    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

4 authors.

Graciela MatrajtDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Washington.
Brienna NaughtonBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington.
Ananda S BandyopadhyayBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington.
John Scott MeschkeDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Washington.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We performed a review of the environmental surveillance methods commonly used to collect and concentrate poliovirus (PV) from water samples. We compared the sampling approaches (trap vs grab), the process methods (precipitation vs filtration), and the various tools and chemical reagents used to separate PV from other viruses and pathogens in water samples (microporous glass, pads, polyethylene glycol [PEG]/dextran, PEG/sodium chloride, NanoCeram/ViroCap, and ester membranes). The advantages and disadvantages of each method are considered, and the geographical areas where they are currently used are discussed. Several methods have demonstrated the ability to concentrate and recover PVs from environmental samples. The details of the particular sampling conditions and locations should be considered carefully in method selection.

Indexed as

Environmental MonitoringHumansPoliomyelitisPoliovirusSpecimen Handling

Identifiers

PMID30376094
PMCPMC6206110

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.