ArticleBMC public health2021
Prioritisation for future surveillance, prevention and control of 98 communicable diseases in Belgium: a 2018 multi-criteria decision analysis study.
Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- A rapid review of best practices in the development of risk registers for public health emergency management.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- A Rapid Literature Review of Multi-Criteria Decision Support Methods in the Context of One Health for All-Hazards Threat Prioritization.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- Mortality surveillance as an early warning system for respiratory infection outbreaks: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic in Alexandria, Egypt.The Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association · 2026Article
- Use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support decision-making during health emergencies: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Prioritisation of infectious diseases from a public health perspective: a multi-criteria decision analysis study, France, 2024.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2024Article
- The study on setting priorities of zoonotic agents for medical preparedness and allocation of research resources.PloS one · 2024Article
- Prioritisation processes for programme implementation and evaluation in public health: A scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Lyme borreliosis in Belgium: a cost-of-illness analysis.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Infection Control-Based Construction of a Fever Outpatient Routine Management Model.Emergency medicine international · 2022Article
- Evaluation of criteria and COVID-19 patients for intensive care unit admission in the era of pandemic: A multi-criteria decision making approach.Computer methods and programs in biomedicine · 2021Article
- Rabies in Our Neighbourhood: Preparedness for an Emerging Infectious Disease.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNational public health agencies are required to prioritise infectious diseases for prevention and control. We applied the prioritisation method recommended by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control to rank infectious diseases, according to their relative importance for surveillance and public health, to inform future public health action in Belgium.
methodsWe applied the multi-criteria-decision-analysis approach. A working group of epidemiologists and statisticians from Belgium (n = 6) designed a balanced set of prioritisation criteria. A panel of Belgian experts (n = 80) allocated in an online survey each criteria a weight, according to perceived relative importance. Next, experts (n = 37) scored each disease against each criteria in an online survey, guided by disease-specific factsheets referring the period 2010-2016 in Belgium. The weighted sum of the criteria's scores composed the final weighted score per disease, on which the ranking was based. Sensitivity analyses quantified the impact of eight alternative analysis scenarios on the top-20 ranked diseases. We identified criteria and diseases associated with data-gaps as those with the highest number of blank answers in the scoring survey. Principle components of the final weighted score were identified.
resultsWorking groups selected 98 diseases and 18 criteria, structured in five criteria groups. The diseases ranked highest were (in order) pertussis, human immunodeficiency virus infection, hepatitis C and hepatitis B. Among the five criteria groups, overall the highest weights were assigned to 'impact on the patient', followed by 'impact on public health', while different perceptions were identified between clinicians, microbiologists and epidemiologists. Among the 18 individual criteria, 'spreading potential' and 'events requiring public health action' were assigned the highest weights. Principle components clustered with thematic disease groups. Notable data gaps were found among hospital-related diseases.
conclusionsWe ranked infectious diseases using a standardised reproducible approach. The diseases ranked highest are included in current public health programs, but additional reflection for example about needs among risk groups is recommended. Cross-reference of the obtained ranking with current programs is needed to verify whether resources and activities map priority areas. We recommend to implement this method in a recurrent evaluation cycle of national public health priorities.
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.