Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38937848›Full record

ArticleHuman genomics2024

EU surveys insights: analytical tools, future directions, and the essential requirement for reference materials in wastewater monitoring of SARS-CoV-2, antimicrobial resistance and beyond.

Valentina Paracchini, Mauro Petrillo, Anandasagari Arcot Rajashekar, Piotr Robuch, Ursula Vincent, Philippe Corbisier, Simona Tavazzi, Barbara Raffael, Elisabetta Suffredini, Giuseppina La Rosa and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Improving public health laboratory preparedness at European Union level: learning points from experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Tracking epidemic viruses in wastewaters.Microbial biotechnology · 2024
    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

12 authors.

Valentina ParacchiniEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Geel, Belgium.
Mauro PetrilloSeidor Italy SRL, Milano, Italy.
Anandasagari Arcot RajashekarEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Geel, Belgium.
Piotr RobuchEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Geel, Belgium.
Ursula VincentEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Geel, Belgium.
Philippe CorbisierEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Geel, Belgium.
Simona TavazziEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
Barbara RaffaelEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
Elisabetta SuffrediniDepartment of Food Safety, Nutrition and Veterinary Public Health, Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS), Rome, Italy.
Giuseppina La RosaNational Center for Water Safety (CeNSia), Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS), Rome, Italy.
Bernd Manfred GawlikEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
Antonio MarchiniEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Geel, Belgium. antonio.marchini@ec.europa.eu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWastewater surveillance (WWS) acts as a vigilant sentinel system for communities, analysing sewage to protect public health by detecting outbreaks and monitoring trends in pathogens and contaminants. To achieve a thorough comprehension of present and upcoming practices and to identify challenges and opportunities for standardisation and improvement in WWS methodologies, two EU surveys were conducted targeting over 750 WWS laboratories across Europe and other regions. The first survey explored a diverse range of activities currently undertaken or planned by laboratories. The second survey specifically targeted methods and quality controls utilised for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance.

resultsThe findings of the two surveys provide a comprehensive insight into the procedures and methodologies applied in WWS. In Europe, WWS primarily focuses on SARS-CoV-2 with 99% of the survey participants dedicated to this virus. However, the responses highlighted a lack of standardisation in the methodologies employed for monitoring SARS-CoV-2. The surveillance of other pathogens, including antimicrobial resistance, is currently fragmented and conducted by only a limited number of laboratories. Notably, these activities are anticipated to expand in the future. Survey replies emphasise the collective recognition of the need to enhance the accuracy of results in WWS practices, reflecting a shared commitment to advancing precision and effectiveness in WWS methodologies.

conclusionsThese surveys identified a lack of standardised common procedures in WWS practices and the need for quality standards and reference materials to enhance the accuracy and reliability of WWS methods in the future. In addition, it is important to broaden surveillance efforts beyond SARS-CoV-2 to include other emerging pathogens and antimicrobial resistance to ensure a comprehensive approach to protecting public health.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2WastewaterDrug Resistance, MicrobialEuropeHumansSewageSurveys and QuestionnairesSewageWastewaterAMRAnalytical workflowPublic healthReference materialsSARS-CoV-2StandardsWastewater surveillance

Identifiers

PMID38937848
PMCPMC11210120

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.