ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2022
After action review of the response to an outbreak of Lassa fever in Sierra Leone, 2019: Best practices and lessons learnt.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Infection prevention and control measures for emerging infectious disease: lessons learned from the first case of imported Lassa fever in China.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2025Article
- The resurgence of Lassa fever in Nigeria: economic impact, challenges, and strategic public health interventions.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- The Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals on the Strategies, Challenges, and Community Responses to Health System Response and Interventions Towards Lassa Fever Infections and Mortality in Sierra Leone.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
- Lassa Fever Natural History and Clinical Management.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn November 2019, an outbreak of Lassa Fever occurred among health workers in a non-endemic district in Sierra Leone. The outbreak resulted in five cases, including two that were exported to the Netherlands. The outbreak tested multiple technical capacities in the International Health Regulations (2005) in a real-life setting. As such, an after action review (AAR) was undertaken as recommended by World Health Organization. We report on the findings of the AAR including best practices and lessons learnt.
methodsA two stage review process was employed. The first stage involved national pillar level reviews for each technical pillar and one review of the district level response. The second stage brought together all pillars, including participants from the national and sub-national level as well as health sector partners. National guidelines were used as references during the deliberations. A standardized template was used to report on the key findings on what happened, what was supposed to happen, what went well and lessons learnt.
resultsThis was a hospital associated outbreak that likely occurred due to a breach in infection prevention and control (IPC) practices resulting in three health workers being infected during a surgical operation. There was a delay in detecting the outbreak on time due to low index of suspicion among clinicians. Once detected, the outbreak response contained the outbreak within one incubation period. Areas that worked well included coordination, contact tracing, active case search and ring IPC. Notable gaps included delays in accessing local emergency funding and late distribution of IPC and laboratory supplies.
conclusionsThe incident management system worked optimally to contain this outbreak. The core technical gaps identified in surveillance, IPC and delay in deployment of resources should be addressed through systemic changes that can mitigate future outbreaks.
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.