Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21304976›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Modelers' perception of mathematical modeling in epidemiology: a web-based survey.

Gilles Hejblum, Michel Setbon, Laura Temime, Sophie Lesieur, Alain-Jacques Valleron

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Gilles HejblumINSERM, U707 Paris, France. gilles.hejblum@inserm.fr
Michel Setbon
Laura Temime
Sophie Lesieur
Alain-Jacques Valleron

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMathematical modeling in epidemiology (MME) is being used increasingly. However, there are many uncertainties in terms of definitions, uses and quality features of MME. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsTo delineate the current status of these models, a 10-item questionnaire on MME was devised. Proposed via an anonymous internet-based survey, the questionnaire was completed by 189 scientists who had published in the domain of MME. A small minority (18%) of respondents claimed to have in mind a concise definition of MME. Some techniques were identified by the researchers as characterizing MME (e.g. Markov models), while others-at the same level of sophistication in terms of mathematics-were not (e.g. Cox regression). The researchers' opinions were also contrasted about the potential applications of MME, perceived as highly relevant for providing insight into complex mechanisms and less relevant for identifying causal factors. The quality criteria were those of good science and were not related to the size and the nature of the public health problems addressed. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This study shows that perceptions on the nature, uses and quality criteria of MME are contrasted, even among the very community of published authors in this domain. Nevertheless, MME is an emerging discipline in epidemiology and this study underlines that it is associated with specific areas of application and methods. The development of this discipline is likely to deserve a framework providing recommendations and guidance at various steps of the studies, from design to report.

Indexed as

Epidemiologic MethodsModels, TheoreticalResearch PersonnelAuthorshipData CollectionHumansInternetPerception

Identifiers

PMID21304976
PMCPMC3031574

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.