Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30727964›Full record

ReviewBMC infectious diseases2019

Precision public health to inhibit the contagion of disease and move toward a future in which microbes spread health.

David S Thaler, Michael G Head, Andrew Horsley

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC infectious diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

David S ThalerBiozentrum, University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 50/70, CH-4056, Basel, Switzerland. david.thaler@unibas.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7248-5578
Michael G HeadClinical Informatics Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, University Hospital Southampton, Coxford Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Andrew HorsleyResearch School of Physics and Engineering, The Australian National University, Mills Rd., Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia.
Australian National University · AUUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Basel · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antimicrobial resistance continues to outpace the development of new chemotherapeutics. Novel pathogens continue to evolve and emerge. Public health innovation has the potential to open a new front in the war of "our wits against their genes" (Joshua Lederberg). Dense sampling coupled to next generation sequencing can increase the spatial and temporal resolution of microbial characterization while sensor technologies precisely map physical parameters relevant to microbial survival and spread. Microbial, physical, and epidemiological big data could be combined to improve prospective risk identification. However, applied in the wrong way, these approaches may not realize their maximum potential benefits and could even do harm. Minimizing microbial-human interactions would be a mistake. There is evidence that microbes previously thought of at best "benign" may actually enhance human health. Benign and health-promoting microbiomes may, or may not, spread via mechanisms similar to pathogens. Infectious vaccines are approaching readiness to make enhanced contributions to herd immunity. The rigorously defined nature of infectious vaccines contrasts with indigenous "benign or health-promoting microbiomes" but they may converge. A "microbial Neolithic revolution" is a possible future in which human microbial-associations are understood and managed analogously to the macro-agriculture of plants and animals. Tradeoffs need to be framed in order to understand health-promoting potentials of benign, and/or health-promoting microbiomes and infectious vaccines while also discouraging pathogens. Super-spreaders are currently defined as individuals who play an outsized role in the contagion of infectious disease. A key unanswered question is whether the super-spreader concept may apply similarly to health-promoting microbes. The complex interactions of individual rights, community health, pathogen contagion, the spread of benign, and of health-promoting microbiomes including infectious vaccines require study. Advancing the detailed understanding of heterogeneity in microbial spread is very likely to yield important insights relevant to public health.

Indexed as

Communicable DiseasesEnvironmental MicrobiologyMicrobiotaPublic HealthAgricultureAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, MicrobialHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHousingHumansPrecision MedicineAnti-Bacterial AgentsBioethicsEpidemiologyHealthy buildingsInfectious diseaseInfectious vaccinesMicrobiomePrecision medicinePrecision public healthPublic healthVaccines

Identifiers

PMID30727964
PMCPMC6364421
OpenAlexW2920690311

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.