ReviewFrontiers in public health2026
A framework for evaluating implementation, impact, and cost-effectiveness of wastewater and environmental surveillance.
Review 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wastewater and environmental surveillance (WES) enhances infectious disease outbreak awareness by detecting pathogens before symptoms or clinical testing. As communities seek to implement, optimize, or expand WES programs, evaluation is essential to ensure effectiveness, cost efficiency, and trustworthiness. However, program evaluation guidance, including a logic model, is lacking. This conceptual analysis addresses this gap by presenting a modular, evidence-based logic model grounded in 151 WES evaluations from 2016 to 2025 across diverse contexts and program types. The model aligns with Kellogg Foundation principles and supports multiple evaluation types. It outlines inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes leading to three ultimate goals: reducing infectious disease burden, lowering risks from catastrophic biological events, and strengthening public health system resilience. We offer recommendations on how public health agencies can use this model to guide planning and evaluation of WES implementation or expansion, ensuring stronger preparedness and response to future public health threats.
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.