English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

To the editor: We read with great interest the results presented by Gilsdorf and Krause (2011) [1] of a survey to experts on the methodology used by Krause et al. (2008) [2] to prioritise 85 pathogens of public health importance. Their work deals with a very relevant subject, given current pressure on health budgets: the allocation of finite disease surveillance and control resources among competing alternatives, infectious diseases in this case. The authors correctly identify the evaluation as being multi-dimensional and compensatory. Unfortunately, they appear to have overlooked findings and principles of well-established methodologies for assessing the impact of multiple effects on non-tradable goods, such as multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) [5]. It is within this perspective that we make our comments. [...]

euro surveillance/eurosurveillance

Letter to the editor: Prioritisation of infectious diseases in public health: feedback on the prioritisation methodology, 15 July 2008 to 15 January 2009