ArticleInfection ecology & epidemiology2020
Biosafety considerations and risk reduction strategy for a new veterinary faculty building and teaching hospital in Sweden.
Article in Infection ecology & epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis paper describes a hazard- and risk-based strategy and recommendations on relevant biosafety levels in facility design of a new veterinary faculty building including a veterinary medical teaching hospital. Both animal and human health were considered. MATERIALS AND
methodsAgents listed in the regulatory frameworks on animal and human health were identified as the main potential hazards. Suggestions on biosafety level and facility design were based on the official risk grouping of those agents, the associated risk management procedures, and biosafety experiences from previous faculty buildings. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: It was suggested that VHC should not be designed for work with agents requiring facilities at biosafety levels 3 and 4, and that actions in cases of accidental exposure to notifiable infections should follow the regulatory requirements. Facilities requiring biosafety level 2 were identified from risk scenarios and transmission routes.Experiences from the first five years of operation revealed good prevention of spread of infection from patients in isolation facilities and successful elimination of Salmonella and MRSA from the large animal clinic.
conclusionIn order to avoid costly construction mistakes, an overall biosafety strategy should be formulated and used as guidance for architects and other relevant stakeholders designing facilities for the animal health sector. Regulatory requirements on infectious diseases must be complied with.
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.