ArticlePloS one2026
Exploring integrated advice and avian influenza knowledge gaps by using a Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza outbreak simulation.
Article in PloS one, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInitial evaluations of the COVID-19 pandemic suggested that broad multidisciplinary expertise is needed for an all of society pandemic response. However, it is unclear whether balanced, multi-perspective scientific advising is secured in separate disciplinary advisory committees.
aimOur aim was to explore the potential of integrated advising among biomedical, societal and economic experts into pandemic response, using a simulation of a highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) outbreak. Additionally, we aimed to identify cross-cutting gaps in knowledge and expertise relevant for HPAI pandemic preparedness.
methodsWe conducted two table-top simulation exercises (April/May 2024), based on a fictitious HPAI outbreak originating in the Netherlands and associated with severe disease among children. In total, 22 and 19 experts participated, representing biomedical, societal and economic sciences. Participants first drafted an outbreak management advice in separate biomedical and societal teams, followed by integrated deliberations and advice in mixed groups. Written notes of the deliberations and pre-simulation interviews was used for an inductive, reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsSeparate advisory processes differed in perceived urgency, situation assessment, and the drafted best- and worst-case scenarios. Mixed groups deliberations exposed disciplinary blind spots and fostered mutual understanding. In particular, school closure was discussed extensively due to conflicting perspectives. Cross-cutting knowledge and know-how gaps were identified in the alignment of (infra)structures and guidelines.
conclusionsOur simulation exercises suggest that an integrated advisory approach may have an added value in overcoming conflicting advice during pandemics. Further research is needed to explore whether this observed added value extends to an integrated advisory body.
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.