Evidence mapPaperPMID 41229464Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

WHO'

Jean Merlin von Agris, David Bell, Blagovesta Tacheva, Garrett Wallace Brown

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jean Merlin von AgrisSchool of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
David BellIndependent Consultant, Lake Jackson, TX, United States.
Blagovesta TachevaSchool of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Garrett Wallace BrownSchool of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: This article examines how the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations and guidelines on public health and social measures (PHSM) have changed since COVID-19. Doing so allows insights on what lessons WHO has learned from the COVID-19 response. Methods: The article analyses six recent WHO publications detailing recommendations on PHSM and compares them against three pre-COVID-19 WHO documents. The analysis also assesses the evidence-base used for these recommendations to better understand WHO's substantive basis and rationale for the PHSM changes. Results: The analysis reveals substantial changes in WHO recommendations, often without systematic evidence assessment. Several population-wide interventions including quarantine, travel measures, and universal masking have become normalized in post-COVID documents, despite being previously discouraged. When evidence is cited, it often pertains to narrowly defined short-term outcomes, with limited consideration of broader societal impacts. Adverse effects of PHSM are recognized, but mitigation takes priority over avoiding harms. Conclusion: Systematic evaluation of the evidence on PHSM during the COVID-19 pandemic, including their effectiveness and collateral effects, is imperative before revising changes in recommendations for future pandemics.

Indexed as

COVID-19Guidelines as TopicPandemicsPublic HealthWorld Health OrganizationHumansQuarantineSARS-CoV-2contact tracingmaskingnon-pharmaceutical interventionspandemic preparednesspandemic responsepublic health and social measuresquarantineWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID41229464
PMCPMC12602469

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.