Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32382554›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2020

Enhancing Preparedness for Arbovirus Infections with a One Health Approach: The Development and Implementation of Multisectoral Risk Assessment Exercises.

Maria Grazia Dente, Flavia Riccardo, Wim Van Bortel, Laurence Marrama, Thomas Mollet, Tarik Derrough, Bertrand Sudre, Paolo Calistri, Gloria Nacca, Alessia Ranghiasci and 12 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. A Review of the Changing Global Impact of Arthropod-Borne Virus Diseases and Recent Initiatives from the World Health Organization.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

22 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.

Maria Grazia DenteIstituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0782-6564
Flavia RiccardoIstituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy.
Wim Van BortelEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6644-518X
Laurence MarramaEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5464-4149
Thomas MolletEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Stockholm, Sweden.
Tarik DerroughEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Stockholm, Sweden.
Bertrand SudreEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Stockholm, Sweden.
Paolo CalistriIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell'Abruzzo e del Molise (IZSAM), Teramo, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6004-9373
Gloria NaccaIstituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy.
Alessia RanghiasciIstituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy.
Camille EscadafalInstitut Pasteur, Paris, France.
Lobna GaayebInstitut Pasteur, Paris, France.
Ariane GuillotInstitut Pasteur, Paris, France.
Miguel Angel Jiménez-ClaveroCentro de Investigación en Sanidad Animal (INIA-CISA), Valdeolmos, Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2125-9743
Jean-Claude ManuguerraInstitut Pasteur, Paris, France.
Guillain MikatyInstitut Pasteur, Paris, France.
Marie PicardMIVEGEC Unit, University of Montpellier, IRD, CNRS, Montpellier, France.
Jovita Fernández-PineroCentro de Investigación en Sanidad Animal (INIA-CISA), Valdeolmos, Madrid, Spain.
Elisa Pérez-RamírezCentro de Investigación en Sanidad Animal (INIA-CISA), Valdeolmos, Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7701-9816
Vincent RobertMIVEGEC Unit, University of Montpellier, IRD, CNRS, Montpellier, France.
Kathleen VictoirInstitut Pasteur, Paris, France.
Silvia DeclichIstituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5916-3889
Institut Pasteur · FRIstituto Superiore di Sanità · ITEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control · SECentro Regional de Selección y Reproducción Animal · ESCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FREuropean Commission · BEFIND · CHIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell'Abruzzo e del Molise G. Caporale · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne Health is receiving attention for arbovirus infection prevention and control and for defining national "intersectoral" priorities. Increasing awareness of intersectoral priorities through multisectorial risk assessments (MRA) is promising, where data are not systematically shared between sectors. Towards this aim, the MediLabSecure project organized three MRA exercises (hereby called exercises): one on West Nile virus, one on Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever, and one on Rift Valley fever, assessing the added value of this approach.

methodsThe exercises relied on RA methodologies of international organisations. Country representatives of the human and animal virology, medical entomology, and public health sectors (hereby called "sectors") involved in the surveillance of vector-borne diseases participated in the exercises. Background documentation was provided before each exercise, and a guide was developed for the facilitators. All three exercises included technical and methodological presentations and a guided RA directed at bringing into play the different sectors involved. To assess the added value of the approach, each participant was asked to rank the level of perceived benefit of the multisectoral collaboration for each "risk question" included in the exercises.

resultsIn total, 195 participants from 19 non-EU countries in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions took part in the exercises. The participants assessed the multisectoral approach as valuable in analysing comprehensively the situation by having access to information and knowledge provided by each of the sectors involved. Sharing of information and discussion facilitated reaching a consensus on the level of risk in each country.

conclusionsIncreasing awareness of intersectoral priorities, including cross-border ones, through MRA is relevant to reduce gaps due to unavailability of shared data and information. Given that six out of the ten threats to global health listed by WHO are occurring at the human-animal-environmental interfaces, comprehensive regional RA with a One Health approach made by national authorities can be a relevant added value for the global health security.

Indexed as

Arbovirus InfectionsGlobal HealthOne HealthAnimalsHumansRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID32382554
PMCPMC7191441
OpenAlexW3019858157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.