Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41550674›Full record

ArticleChina CDC weekly2026

A Review and Future Directions for Global Public Health Security Assessment Tools.

Fangyu Cheng, Chunping Wang, Yueyuan Li, Hongtao Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in China CDC weekly, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Fangyu ChengSchool of Public Health, Shandong Second Medical University, Weifang city, Shandong Province, China.
Chunping WangSchool of Public Health, Shandong Second Medical University, Weifang city, Shandong Province, China.
Yueyuan LiSchool of Public Health, Shandong Second Medical University, Weifang city, Shandong Province, China.
Hongtao WuHealth Emergency Center, Chinese Centers for Disease Control and Prevention & Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the context of globalization, national capacities for responding to public health emergencies are evaluated using various global assessment tools, most notably the externally derived Global Health Security Index (GHSI), the peer-reviewed Joint External Evaluation (JEE), and the self-reported States Parties Self-Assessment Annual Report (SPAR). These instruments are designed to strengthen emergency response systems worldwide. However, the dynamic transmission characteristics of the COVID-19 pandemic exposed significant discrepancies, as assessment scores from these tools did not consistently align with countries' actual pandemic response performance. This review examines the performance of these assessment tools throughout the pandemic and identifies three fundamental issues that undermined the effectiveness of GHSI, JEE, and SPAR evaluations. Although indicators across eight technical areas were revised following the pandemic, substantial modifications remain necessary to address the identified limitations. To enhance the utility of these assessment frameworks, systematic revisions are required in multiple domains: restructuring the indicator system architecture, diversifying data sources while expanding indicator dimensions, strengthening data verification protocols, refining weight allocation methodologies, incorporating real-time data streams, and ultimately establishing a dynamic monitoring and assessment system.

Indexed as

GHSIGlobal Public Health Security Relevant AssessmentJEESPAR

Identifiers

PMID41550674
PMCPMC12804772

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.