Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35486338›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of epidemiology2022

A twenty-first century perspective on concepts of modern epidemiology in Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis' work on puerperal sepsis.

Andreas Stang, Fabian Standl, Charles Poole

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

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

3 authors.

Andreas StangInstitut für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany. imibe.dir@uk-essen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6363-9061
Fabian StandlInstitut für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6699-8377
Charles PooleDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01ER1305
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We aimed to review Semmelweis's complete work on puerperal sepsis mortality in maternity wards in relation to exposure to cadavers and chlorine handwashing and other factors from the perspective of modern epidemiological methods. We reviewed Semmelweis' complete work and data as published by von Györy 1905 according to current standards. We paid particular attention to Semmelweis's definition of mortality in and of itself, to concepts of modern epidemiology that were already recognizable in Semmelweis's work, and to bias sources. We did several quantitative bias analyses to address selection bias and information bias from outcome measurement error. Semmelweis addressed biases that have become known to modern epidemiology, such as confounding, selection bias and bias from outcome misclassification. Our bias analysis shows that differential loss to follow-up is an unlikely explanation for his results. Bias due to outcome misclassification would only be relevant if misclassification differed between time periods. Confounding by health status was likely but could not be quantitatively addressed. Semmelweis was aware that cause-specific mortality is a function of incidence and prognosis. He reasoned in potential outcome terms to estimate the reduced number of deaths from an intervention. He advanced a hypothesis of clinic overcrowding as a risk factor for puerperal sepsis mortality that turns out to be wrong. Semmelweis' data provide a great pool for illustrating the logic of scientific discovery by use of the numerical method. The explanatory power of his work was strong and Semmelweis was able to refute several previous causal explanations.

Indexed as

Puerperal InfectionSepsisCausalityFemaleHistory, 19th CenturyHumansHungaryMalePregnancyRisk FactorsSelection BiasCross infection/historyCross infection/prevention & controlCross infection/transmissionFemaleHand disinfectionHistoryHumansNineteenth centuryObstetrics/history*PregnancyPublic health/historyPuerperal infection/history*Puerperal infection/prevention & control

Identifiers

PMID35486338
PMCPMC9209376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.