ReviewBMJ open2026
Infection prevention and control measures for Ebola and Marburg disease: a series of rapid reviews.
Review in BMJ open, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAn evidence synthesis informed the 2023 WHO infection prevention and control (IPC) guideline for Ebola disease (EBOD) and Marburg disease (MARD).
designA series of rapid reviews addressed 14 key questions (KQs) related to IPC measures for EBOD and MARD across three themes: (1) transmission/exposure, (2) personal protective equipment (PPE) and (3) decontamination/disinfection. DATA SOURCES: Databases (Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, Global Index Medicus) were searched from inception to May 2024, in addition to searches in MEDLINE and bio/medRxiv servers through an artificial intelligence tool (continuous active learning, CAL). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible populations included health workers (HWs), staff and patients in healthcare and/or community settings. Interventions included PPE evaluation, hand hygiene/glove decontamination, spraying of HWs, handling of heavily soiled linen, management of the deceased, environmental decontamination, work exclusion and the IPC ring approach. Infection with EBOD or MARD was a primary outcome of interest and secondary outcomes of interest varied by key question. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Screening, data extraction, quality assessment (Cochrane RoB-2, Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I)) and evaluation of the certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)) were conducted by an independent reviewer with verification. Data and relevant contextual information were narratively synthesised.
resultsFollowing screening of 5540 studies in CAL and 1062 full texts, nine studies were included that addressed four KQs: one related to transmission/exposure (IPC ring approach), two related to PPE (head/neck skin and mucous membranes coverage; order of eye protection and head covering) and one related to disinfection/decontamination (spraying of HWs during PPE doffing). No studies were included for the remaining KQs, but relevant contextual information in reviewed studies was summarised for all KQs. Evidence was judged to be of low or very low certainty using the GRADE framework due to risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision, and substantive conclusions could not be drawn on the effectiveness of the evaluated IPC interventions.
conclusionsWhile providing the evidence base for the WHO IPC guideline for EBOD and MARD, this series of rapid reviews identified several critical research gaps. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD#42022331537.
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.