SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Systematic review on the laboratory methodology for conducting wastewater and environmental surveillance for
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Wastewater and environmental surveillance (WES) is a valuable supplementary tool to clinical surveillance for infectious diseases, especially in low- and middle-income countries. This systematic review evaluates laboratory methods for detecting Methods: The review was performed using protocol registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024573052) following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The review was funded by the European Commission's Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science (last update: May 31, 2025). Studies describing sampling and laboratory methods for Results: Of 2,007 records, 94 studies from 36 countries met inclusion criteria. Grab sampling was most common, followed by trap and composite sampling. Detection methods included culture, PCR, and sequencing. Six methodological pathways were identified. Fewer than 14% of studies reported comprehensive quality control. Substantial heterogeneity in sampling, handling, and testing protocols affected reproducibility and comparability. Discussion: Evidence generated was constrained due to inconsistent reporting of quality control and validation criteria. Most studies lacked critical methodological details for reproducibility and scale-up. Harmonized, context-adapted protocols and minimum reporting standards are needed, along with leveraging existing surveillance infrastructure for rapid implementation of Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024573052, identifier PROSPERO (CRD42024573052).
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.