Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34218099›Full record

ArticleJournal of infection and public health2021

Lessons for and from the COVID-19 pandemic response - An appraisal of guidance for the public health management of Invasive Meningococcal Disease.

Brianna R Morello, Adriana Milazzo, Helen S Marshall, Lynne C Giles

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of infection and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
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

4 authors.

Brianna R MorelloSchool of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide Health and Medical Sciences Building, Corner of North Terrace and George Street, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
Adriana MilazzoSchool of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide Health and Medical Sciences Building, Corner of North Terrace and George Street, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
Helen S MarshallAdelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide Health and Medical Sciences Building, Corner of North Terrace & George Street, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia; Robinson Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, Ground Floor, Norwich Centre, 55 King William Road, North Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia.
Lynne C GilesSchool of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide Health and Medical Sciences Building, Corner of North Terrace and George Street, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia; Robinson Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, Ground Floor, Norwich Centre, 55 King William Road, North Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia. Electronic address: lynne.giles@adelaide.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCOVID-19 has focussed public attention on the management of communicable disease like never before. Surveillance, contact tracing, and case management are recognised as key components of outbreak prevention. Development of guidance for COVID-19 has drawn from existing management of other communicable diseases, including Invasive Meningococcal Disease (IMD). IMD is a rare but severe outcome of Neisseria meningitidis infection that can be prevented through vaccination. Cases still occur sporadically, requiring ongoing surveillance and consistent management. To this end, national and international public health agencies have developed and published guidance for identification and management of IMD cases.

aimTo assess national and international guidelines for the public health management of IMD, with a focus on the recommendations for identification and management of "close contacts" to IMD cases.

methodsGuidelines from six national and international public health agencies were assessed using a modified version of the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) Instrument in four key domains: stakeholder involvement, developmental rigour, clarity, and applicability. A direct comparison of terminology and recommendations for identification and management of close contacts to IMD cases was also conducted.

resultsGuidelines from Europe and the United Kingdom rated most highly using the AGREE II Instrument, both presenting a clear, critical assessment of the strength of the available evidence, and the risks, costs, and benefits behind recommendations for management of close contacts. Direct comparison of guidelines identified inconsistencies in the language defining close contacts to IMD cases.

conclusionDiscrepancies between guidelines could be due to limited evidence concerning mechanisms behind disease transmission, along with the lack of a consistent process for development and review of guideline recommendations. COVID-19 management has demonstrated that international collaboration for development of public health guidance is possible, a practice that should be extended to management of other communicable diseases.

Indexed as

COVID-19Meningococcal InfectionsEuropeHumansPandemicsPublic HealthSARS-CoV-2United KingdomCommunicable diseasesContact tracingCOVID-19GuidelinesMeningococcal disease

Identifiers

PMID34218099
PMCPMC8230839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.