SynthesisPloS one2019
Reporting quality of the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Africa: A systematic analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Limitations of Canadian COVID-19 data reporting to the general public.Journal of public health policy · 2022Article
- Quality, Equity and Utility of Observational Studies during 10 Years of Implementing the Structured Operational Research and Training Initiative in 72 Countries.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2020Article
- Intensive care management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): challenges and recommendations.The Lancet. Respiratory medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic analysis of the reporting quality of the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak in West Africa from 2014-2018 using the Modified STROBE statement. We included studies on the 2014 EVD outbreak alone, limited to those on human patients in Africa. We searched the following databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science) for outbreak reports published between 2014-2018. We assessed factors potentially associated with the quality of reporting. A total of 69 of 131 (53%) articles within the full-text review fulfilled our eligibility criteria and underwent the Modified STROBE assessment for analyzing the quality of reporting. The Modified STROBE scores of the included studies ranged from 11-26 points and the mean was found to be 19.54 out of 30 with a standard deviation (SD) of ± 4.30. The top three reported Modified STROBE components were descriptive characteristics of study participants, scientific background and evidence rational, and clinical significance of observations. More than 75% of the studies met a majority of the criteria in the Modified STROBE assessment tool. Information that was commonly missing included addressing potential source of bias, sensitivity analysis, further results/analysis such as risk estimates and odds ratios, presence of a flowchart, and addressing missing data. In multivariable analysis, peer-reviewed publication was the only predictor that remained significantly associated with a higher Modified STROBE score. In conclusion, the large range of Modified STROBE scores observed indicates variability in the quality of outbreak reports for EVD. The review identified strong reporting in some areas, whereas other areas are in need of improvement, in particular providing an important description of the outbreak setting and identifying any external elements (potential biases and confounding factors) that could hinder the credibility of the findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.