Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34695115›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2021

Evaluating Surveillance for and Estimating Administration of Rabies Postexposure Prophylaxis in the United States, 2012-2018.

Erin R Whitehouse, Marissa K Person, Catherine M Brown, Sally Slavinski, Agam K Rao, Jesse D Blanton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Erin R WhitehouseDivision of High Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5158-0282
Marissa K PersonDivision of High Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2460-0911
Catherine M BrownBureau of Infectious Disease and Laboratory Sciences, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Sally SlavinskiNew York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, New York, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1617-0798
Agam K RaoDivision of High Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Jesse D BlantonDivision of High Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2634-355X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn evaluation of postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) surveillance has not been conducted in over 10 years in the United States. An accurate assessment would be important to understand current rabies trends and inform public health preparedness and response to human rabies. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPLE

findingsTo understand PEP surveillance, we sent a survey to public health leads for rabies in 50 U.S. states, Puerto Rico, Washington DC, Philadelphia, and New York City. Of leads from 54 jurisdictions, 39 (72%) responded to the survey; 12 reported having PEP-specific surveillance, five had animal bite surveillance that included data about PEP, four had animal bite surveillance without data about PEP, and 18 (46%) had neither. Although 12 jurisdictions provided data about PEP use, poor data quality and lack of national representativeness prevented use of this data to derive a national-level PEP estimate. We used national-level and state specific data from the Healthcare Cost & Utilization Project (HCUP) to estimate the number of people who received PEP based on emergency department (ED) visits. The estimated annual average of initial ED visits for PEP administration during 2012-2017 in the United States was 46,814 (SE: 1,697), costing upwards of 165 million USD. State-level ED data for initial visits for administration of PEP for rabies exposure using HCUP data was compared to state-level surveillance data from Maryland, Vermont, and Georgia between 2012-2017. In all states, state-level surveillance data was consistently lower than estimates of initial ED visits, suggesting even states with robust PEP surveillance may not adequately capture individuals who receive PEP.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that making PEP a nationally reportable condition may not be feasible. Other methods of tracking administration of PEP such as syndromic surveillance or identification of sentinel states should be considered to obtain an accurate assessment.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntibodies, ViralHumansPost-Exposure ProphylaxisRabiesRabies VaccinesRabies virusSentinel SurveillanceUnited StatesAntibodies, ViralRabies Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID34695115
PMCPMC8568135

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.