ArticleF1000Research2024
Evaluation of centralised and decentralised models of care during the 2020 Ebola Virus Disease outbreak in Equateur Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo: A brief report.
Article in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Donor dependency and pandemic readiness: insights from the 2026 Ebola Bundibugyo outbreak in the East African community.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of centralised and decentralised models of care during the 2020 Ebola Virus Disease outbreak in Equateur Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo: A brief report.F1000Research · 2024Article
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
Background: Traditionally in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), centralised Ebola treatment centres (ETCs) have been set exclusively for Ebola virus disease (EVD) case management during outbreaks. During the 2020 EVD outbreak in DRC's Equateur Province, existing health centres were equipped as decentralised treatment centres (DTC) to improve access for patients with suspected EVD. Between ETCs and DTCs, we compared the time from symptom onset to admission and diagnosis among patients with suspected EVD. Methods: This was a cohort study based on analysis of a line-list containing demographic and clinical information of patients with suspected EVD admitted to any EVD health facility during the outbreak. Results: Of 2359 patients with suspected EVD, 363 (15%) were first admitted to a DTC. Of 1996 EVD-suspected patients initially admitted to an ETC, 72 (4%) were confirmed as EVD-positive. Of 363 EVD-suspected patients initially admitted to a DTC, 6 (2%) were confirmed and managed as EVD-positive in the DTC. Among all EVD-suspected patients, the median (interquartile range) duration between symptom onset and admission was 2 (1-4) days in a DTC compared to 4 (2-7) days in an ETC (p<0.001). Similarly, time from symptom onset to admission was significantly shorter among EVD-suspected patients ultimately diagnosed as EVD-negative. Conclusions: Since <5% of the EVD-suspected patients admitted were eventually diagnosed with EVD, there is a need for better screening to optimise resource utilization and outbreak control. Only one in seven EVD-suspected patients were admitted to a DTC first, as the DTCs were piloted in a limited and phased manner. However, there is a case to be made for considering decentralized care especially in remote and hard-to-reach areas in places like the DRC to facilitate early access to care, contain viral shedding by patients with EVD and ensure no disrupted provision of non-EVD services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.