Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25977955›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2015

A review of back-calculation techniques and their potential to inform mitigation strategies with application to non-transmissible acute infectious diseases.

Joseph R Egan, Ian M Hall

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. National outbreak of Shiga toxin-producingEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

2 authors.

Joseph R Egan
Ian M Hall

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Back-calculation is a process whereby generally unobservable features of an event leading to a disease outbreak can be inferred either in real-time or shortly after the end of the outbreak. These features might include the time when persons were exposed and the source of the outbreak. Such inferences are important as they can help to guide the targeting of mitigation strategies and to evaluate the potential effectiveness of such strategies. This article reviews the process of back-calculation with a particular emphasis on more recent applications concerning deliberate and naturally occurring aerosolized releases. The techniques can be broadly split into two themes: the simpler temporal models and the more sophisticated spatio-temporal models. The former require input data in the form of cases' symptom onset times, whereas the latter require additional spatial information such as the cases' home and work locations. A key aspect in the back-calculation process is the incubation period distribution, which forms the initial topic for consideration. Links between atmospheric dispersion modelling, within-host dynamics and back-calculation are outlined in detail. An example of how back-calculation can inform mitigation strategies completes the review by providing improved estimates of the duration of antibiotic prophylaxis that would be required in the response to an inhalational anthrax outbreak.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalAnimalsCommunicable Disease ControlCommunicable DiseasesComputer SimulationDisease OutbreaksFeasibility StudiesHumansIncidencePopulation SurveillanceRisk AssessmentSpatio-Temporal Analysis

Identifiers

PMID25977955
PMCPMC4424687

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.