ArticleMicrobial genomics2023
How public health authorities can use pathogen genomics in health protection practice: a consensus-building Delphi study conducted in the United Kingdom.
Article in Microbial genomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Describing the outcomes and factors of using pathogen genomic results in public health.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Imagining Genomics and Population Health in 2050: Anticipating Future Research, Policy, and Governance Needs.Public health genomics · 2026Article
- Insights from expert elicitation: prioritising pathogens for genome sequencing for Australian public health response.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- Observational
- SARS-CoV-2 introductions to the island of Ireland: a phylogenetic and geospatiotemporal study of infection dynamics.Genome medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pathogen sequencing guided understanding of SARS-CoV-2 evolution during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many health systems developed pathogen genomics services to monitor SARS-CoV-2. There are no agreed guidelines about how pathogen genomic information should be used in public health practice. We undertook a modified Delphi study in three rounds to develop expert consensus statements about how genomic information should be used. Our aim was to inform health protection policy, planning and practice. Participants were from organisations that produced or used pathogen genomics information in the United Kingdom. The first round posed questions derived from a rapid literature review. Responses informed statements for the subsequent rounds. Consensus was accepted when 70 % or more of the responses were strongly agree/agree, or 70 % were disagree/strongly disagree on the five-point Likert scale. Consensus was achieved in 26 (96 %) of 27 statements. We grouped the statements into six categories: monitoring the emergence of new variants; understanding the epidemiological context of genomic data; using genomic data in outbreak risk assessment and risk management; prioritising the use of limited sequencing capacity; sequencing service performance; and sequencing service capability. The expert consensus statements will help guide public health authorities and policymakers to integrate pathogen genomics in health protection practice.
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.