Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30478485›Full record

ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2019

[Incident-crisis-disaster. Conceptualizing unusual biological incidents].

Sven Sachse, Iris Hunger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Sven SachseMedizinische Fakultät, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
Iris HungerInformationsstelle des Bundes für Biologische Gefahren und Spezielle Pathogene, Robert Koch-Institut, Seestraße 10, 13353, Berlin, Deutschland. HungerI@rki.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unusual biological threats demand adequate preparedness efforts, as demonstrated, for example, by the Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa in 2014/2015 and pandemic influenza in 2009/2010. In Germany, responsibilities for such efforts are located in different governmental authorities and differ from state to state. As a result, there are many different preparedness approaches using divergent core terminology.In this article a common definition for the term "unusual biological incident" is proposed. To do so, a literature review as well as semi-structured expert interviews with representatives of central actors in Germany were conducted. The understanding of "unusual biological incident" was not consistent among experts; four approaches to qualify a biological incident as "unusual" were identified. These were merged in a comprehensive system-oriented approach that focuses on the health system's resilience and on shortages of knowledge and material resources during incidents.Based on this approach, we suggest a stage model for the categorization of biological threats as "incident," "crisis," "severe crisis," or "disaster." The need for central coordination is a defining characteristic to qualify a biological incident as "unusual." Based on the identified shortages, the necessary response strategies can be derived.

Indexed as

Disaster PlanningDisastersAfrica, WesternBiohazard ReleaseGermanyBiological incident responseCBRN threatHealth crisisPreparedness planningResource management

Identifiers

PMID30478485
PMCPMC7080037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.