ReviewCurrent treatment options in infectious diseases2016
A Brief History of Biocontainment.
Review in Current treatment options in infectious diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethical Preparedness for U.S. Biocontainment Units.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Cases of high-consequence infectious diseases identified in the UK, 1962-2023.Journal of medical microbiology · 2025Review
- A Review of Swine Breeding Herd Biosecurity in the United States to Prevent Virus Entry Using Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus as a Model Pathogen.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Review
- Cytometry in High-Containment Laboratories.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Review
- Air Quality Monitoring During High-Level Biocontainment Ground Transport: Observations From Two Operational Exercises.Disaster medicine and public health preparedness · 2022Article
- Biodefence research two decades on: worth the investment?The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The concept of clinical biocontainment, otherwise known as high-level containment care (HLCC), had its birth among a confluence of near-simultaneous events in 1969. The U.S. Army's Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) began construction of the first modern biocontainment unit that year, and opened the two-bed facility, often referred to as "the Slammer" in 1971. Over its 41-year existence, 21 persons exposed to highly hazardous infectious diseases were admitted to the Slammer, but none ever contracted the disease to which they had been exposed. Owing, in part, to this underutilization, some questioned the utility of HLCC units. This concern notwithstanding, Emory University and the University of Nebraska opened HLCC units in civilian academic medical centers in 2004 and 2005, respectively. These units, distinct from conventional infectious disease isolation wards found in most major medical centers, proved their worth during the West African Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak of 2014-2015. It is our opinion that such units, as well as the parallel high-level containment transport systems necessary to move patients to them, will continue to play an important role in the global response to emerging and highly hazardous contagious pathogens. Moreover, we feel that the lessons derived from their successful operation will lead to improvements in infection control procedures and practices throughout the healthcare system.
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.