Investigating the Sudan virus outbreak in Uganda through the deployment of a mobile laboratory
BMC Infectious Diseases·
- DOI
- 10.1186/s12879-026-12556-8
- PMID
- 41540350
- PMCID
- PMC12849418
- OpenAlex
- —
- Study type
- Journal article
- Publisher
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Article type
- journal-article
- Integrity
- current
Why this research matters now
Co-locating a mobile laboratory with the treatment unit shortened diagnostic turnaround, supported national data-driven decision-making, and enabled follow-up surveillance relevant to outbreak containment and survivor counselling.
Structured evidence summary
Research question
The study describes the deployment of a mobile laboratory in Mubende during Uganda's 2022–2023 Sudan virus outbreak and evaluates its diagnostic contribution, viral kinetics insights, and integration into the national response.
Study design
An operational/descriptive field report of a laboratory response, with RT-PCR testing of clinical specimens over a 177-day deployment supported by routine surveillance data and follow-up sampling of survivors.
Population and setting
Setting was the Mubende Regional Referral Hospital in Uganda during the September 2022–January 2023 Sudan virus outbreak, serving suspected cases, survivors (including breastfeeding mothers and male survivors), and co‑circulating VHF differentials.
Main findings
3,282 samples were tested with 72 RT‑PCR–confirmed SVD cases and an average turnaround of 6 hours. Sudan virus RNA persisted in breastmilk (median ~135 days) and semen (median ~176 days) after initial positivity. Healthcare workers showed the highest infection risk, and initial viral load correlated with patient outcome. Six RVF and seven CCHF cases were identified as co‑circulating differentials.
Public-health relevance
Co-locating a mobile laboratory with the treatment unit shortened diagnostic turnaround, supported national data-driven decision-making, and enabled follow-up surveillance relevant to outbreak containment and survivor counselling.
Important limitations
The abstract does not enumerate explicit study limitations; this summary is restricted to the supplied single-article abstract and metadata and would require the original paper for decision-grade interpretation.
GIDS interpretation
The paper sits within outbreak response, diagnostics, surveillance, and treatment literatures and may aid discoverability of mobile-lab deployment approaches and survivor-monitoring evidence; it does not, on its own, constitute or confirm any live surveillance signal.
Related GIDS surveillance
Literature context does not validate, explain, or change a surveillance signal. Exact and contextual relationships are shown separately.
Evidence relationships
This article has 14 auditable classifier relationships to diseases, places, topics, and study design.