ArticlePloS one2024
The study on setting priorities of zoonotic agents for medical preparedness and allocation of research resources.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Managing Japanese Encephalitis Virus as a Veterinary Infectious Disease Through Animal Surveillance and One Health Control Strategies.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to develop a scoring platform to be used as a reference for both medical preparedness and research resource allocation in the prioritization of zoonoses. Using a case-control design, a comprehensive analysis of 46 zoonoses was conducted to identify factors influencing disease prioritization. This analysis provides a basis for constructing models and calculating prioritization scores for different diseases. The case group (n = 23) includes diseases that require immediate notification to health authorities within 24 hours of diagnosis. The control group (n = 23) includes diseases that do not require such immediate notification. Two different models were developed for primary disease prioritization: one model incorporated the four most commonly used prioritization criteria identified through an extensive literature review. The second model used the results of multiple logistic regression analysis to identify significant factors (with p-value less than 0.1) associated with 24-hour reporting, allowing for objective determination of disease prioritization criteria. These different modeling approaches may result in different weights and positive or negative effects of relevant factors within each model. Our study results highlight the variability of zoonotic disease information across time and geographic regions. It provides an objective platform to rank zoonoses and highlights the critical need for regular updates in the prioritization process to ensure timely preparedness. This study successfully established an objective framework for assessing the importance of zoonotic diseases. From a government perspective, it advocates applying principles that consider disease characteristics and medical resource preparedness in prioritization. The results of this study also emphasize the need for dynamic prioritization to effectively improve preparedness to prevent and control disease.
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.