Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31558173›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology and infection2019

Methods for generating hypotheses in human enteric illness outbreak investigations: a scoping review of the evidence.

C Ickert, J Cheng, D Reimer, J Greig, A Hexemer, T Kershaw, L Waddell, M Mascarenhas

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

8 authors.

C IckertSchool of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1238-094X
J ChengOutbreak Management Division, Centre for Food-borne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Canada.
D ReimerPublic Health Risk Sciences Division, National Microbiology Laboratory at Guelph, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Canada.
J GreigPublic Health Risk Sciences Division, National Microbiology Laboratory at Guelph, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Canada.
A HexemerOutbreak Management Division, Centre for Food-borne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Canada.
T KershawOutbreak Management Division, Centre for Food-borne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Canada.
L WaddellPublic Health Risk Sciences Division, National Microbiology Laboratory at Guelph, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4887-5124
M MascarenhasPublic Health Risk Sciences Division, National Microbiology Laboratory at Guelph, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Enteric illness outbreaks are complex events, therefore, outbreak investigators use many different hypothesis generation methods depending on the situation. This scoping review was conducted to describe methods used to generate a hypothesis during enteric illness outbreak investigations. The search included five databases and grey literature for articles published between 1 January 2000 and 2 May 2015. Relevance screening and article characterisation were conducted by two independent reviewers using pretested forms. There were 903 outbreaks that described hypothesis generation methods and 33 papers which focused on the evaluation of hypothesis generation methods. Common hypothesis generation methods described are analytic studies (64.8%), descriptive epidemiology (33.7%), food or environmental sampling (32.8%) and facility inspections (27.9%). The least common methods included the use of a single interviewer (0.4%) and investigation of outliers (0.4%). Most studies reported using two or more methods to generate hypotheses (81.2%), with 29.2% of studies reporting using four or more. The use of multiple different hypothesis generation methods both within and between outbreaks highlights the complexity of enteric illness outbreak investigations. Future research should examine the effectiveness of each method and the contexts for which each is most effective in efficiently leading to source identification.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksEpidemiologic MethodsCommunicable Disease ControlGastrointestinal DiseasesHumansEnteric illnesshypothesis generation methodsoutbreaksscoping review

Identifiers

PMID31558173
PMCPMC6805753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.