A Case Study of CPNS Intelligence: Provenance Reasoning over Tracing Cross Contamination in Food Supply Chain

Yan, Shunqing; Zhu, Yongxin; Zhang, Qiannan; Wang, Qin; Ni, Ming; Xie, Guangwei

doi:10.1109/icdcsw.2012.67

Cited by 7 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of laboratory methods, including whole genome sequencing, was described in five (15.2%) papers [21–25]. Traceback procedures were explored in five (15.2%) papers, including three on the use of network analysis [26–28], one on the use of food flow information [29] and one examining the use of relational systems to identify sources common to different cases [30]. Four (12.1%) papers described broad outbreak investigation activities, which included the hypothesis generation step, one from the United Kingdom [31], one from Quebec, Canada [32], one from Minnesota [33] and one from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States [34].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for generating hypotheses in human enteric illness outbreak investigations: a scoping review of the evidence

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enteric illness outbreaks are complex events, therefore, outbreak investigators use many different hypothesis generation methods depending on the situation. This scoping review was conducted to describe methods used to generate a hypothesis during enteric illness outbreak investigations. The search included five databases and grey literature for articles published between 1 January 2000 and 2 May 2015. Relevance screening and article characterisation were conducted by two independent reviewers using pretested forms. There were 903 outbreaks that described hypothesis generation methods and 33 papers which focused on the evaluation of hypothesis generation methods. Common hypothesis generation methods described are analytic studies (64.8%), descriptive epidemiology (33.7%), food or environmental sampling (32.8%) and facility inspections (27.9%). The least common methods included the use of a single interviewer (0.4%) and investigation of outliers (0.4%). Most studies reported using two or more methods to generate hypotheses (81.2%), with 29.2% of studies reporting using four or more. The use of multiple different hypothesis generation methods both within and between outbreaks highlights the complexity of enteric illness outbreak investigations. Future research should examine the effectiveness of each method and the contexts for which each is most effective in efficiently leading to source identification.

show abstract