Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30406093›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2018

Perspective on Improving Environmental Monitoring of Biothreats.

John Dunbar, Segaran Pillai, David Wunschel, Michael Dickens, Stephen A Morse, David Franz, Andrew Bartko, Jean Challacombe, Timothy Persons, Molly A Hughes and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

20 authors.

John DunbarLos Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States.
Segaran PillaiFood and Drug Administration, Washington, DC, United States.
David WunschelPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, United States.
Michael DickensBattelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH, United States.
Stephen A MorseCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States.
David FranzRetired, Gettysburg, PA, United States.
Andrew BartkoBattelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH, United States.
Jean ChallacombeLos Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, United States.
Timothy PersonsGovernment Accountability Office, Washington, DC, United States.
Molly A HughesGovernment Accountability Office, Washington, DC, United States.
Steve R BlankeUniversity of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, United States.
Robin HollandUniversity of Illinois, Urbana, IL, United States.
Janine HutchisonPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, United States.
Eric D MerkleyPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, United States.
Katrina CampbellQueen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Catherine S BrandaSandia National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, United States.
Shashi SharmaFood and Drug Administration, Washington, DC, United States.
Luther LindlerDepartment of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, United States.
Kevin AndersonDepartment of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, United States.
David HodgeDepartment of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For more than a decade, the United States has performed environmental monitoring by collecting and analyzing air samples for a handful of biological threat agents (BTAs) in order to detect a possible biological attack. This effort has faced numerous technical challenges including timeliness, sampling efficiency, sensitivity, specificity, and robustness. The cost of city-wide environmental monitoring using conventional technology has also been a challenge. A large group of scientists with expertise in bioterrorism defense met to assess the objectives and current efficacy of environmental monitoring and to identify operational and technological changes that could enhance its efficacy and cost-effectiveness, thus enhancing its value. The highest priority operational change that was identified was to abandon the current concept of city-wide environmental monitoring because the operational costs were too high and its value was compromised by low detection sensitivity and other environmental factors. Instead, it was suggested that the focus should primarily be on indoor monitoring and secondarily on special-event monitoring because objectives are tractable and these operational settings are aligned with likelihood and risk assessments. The highest priority technological change identified was the development of a reagent-less, real-time sensor that can identify a potential airborne release and trigger secondary tests of greater sensitivity and specificity for occasional samples of interest. This technological change could be transformative with the potential to greatly reduce operational costs and thereby create the opportunity to expand the scope and effectiveness of environmental monitoring.

Indexed as

aerosols (bio-)biological weapon attackbiowatchdetectionreal-time sensing

Identifiers

PMID30406093
PMCPMC6207620

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.