ArticleEpidemiology and infection2020
The use of multiple hypothesis-generating methods in an outbreak investigation of
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Everything but the kitchen sink: The use of multiple hypothesis generation methods to investigate an outbreak ofEpidemiology and infection · 2024Article
- Optimization of Atmospheric Cold Plasma Treatment with Different Gases for Reduction ofJournal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A Canadian outbreak investigation into a cluster of Escherichia coli O121 was initiated in late 2016. When initial interviews using a closed-ended hypothesis-generating questionnaire did not point to a common source, cases were centrally re-interviewed using an open-ended approach. The open-ended interviews led cases to describe exposures with greater specificity, as well as food preparation activities. Data collected supported hypothesis generation, particularly with respect to flour exposures. In March 2017, an open sample of Brand X flour from a case home, and a closed sample collected at retail of the same brand and production date, tested positive for the outbreak strain of E. coli O121. In total, 76% (16/21) of cases reported that they used or probably used Brand X flour or that it was used or probably was used in the home during their exposure period. Crucial hypothesis-generating techniques used during the course of the investigation included a centralised open-ended interviewing approach and product sampling from case homes. This was the first outbreak investigation in Canada to identify flour as the source of infection.
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.