ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2017
Analysing published global Ebola Virus Disease research using social network analysis.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping the Momentum : Evaluating Research Productivity and Collaborative Networks in Bioethics Across the Eastern Mediterranean Region.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- [Population medicine research in German public health authorities: a bibliometric analysis].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Article
- Research Output and Global Trends in Lassa Fever: A 50-Year Bibliometric Analysis (1975-2025).BioMed research international · 2026Review
- Novel Use of Capture-Recapture Methods to Estimate Completeness of Contact Tracing during an Ebola Outbreak, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2018-2020.Emerging infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Collaboration Network and Trends of Global Coronavirus Disease Research: A Scientometric Analysis.IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions · 2021Article
- Patient-centric research in the time of COVID-19: conducting ethical COVID-19 research in Africa.BMJ global health · 2020Article
- Mapping the situation of research on coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19): a preliminary bibliometric analysis during the early stage of the outbreak.BMC infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Shifting Geographies of Knowledge Production: The Coronavirus Effect.Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie = Journal of economic and social geography = Revue de geographie economique et humaine = Zeitschrift fur okonomische und soziale Geographie = Revista de geografia economica y social · 2020Article
- A disconnected policy network: The UK's response to the Sierra Leone Ebola epidemic.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2020Article
- Arab world's growing contribution to global leishmaniasis research (1998-2017): a bibliometric study.BMC public health · 2019Article
- Bibliometric analysis of global Lassa fever research (1970-2017): a 47 - year study.BMC infectious diseases · 2018Article
- Network-based assessment of collaborative research in neuroscience.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe 2014/2015 West African Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak attracted global attention. Numerous opinions claimed that the global response was impaired, in part because, the EVD research was neglected, although quantitative or qualitative studies did not exist. Our objective was to analyse how the EVD research landscape evolved by exploring the existing research network and its communities before and during the outbreak in West Africa. METHODS/ PRINCIPAL
findingsSocial network analysis (SNA) was used to analyse collaborations between institutions named by co-authors as affiliations in publications on EVD. Bibliometric data of publications on EVD between 1976 and 2015 was collected from Thomson Reuters' Web of Science Core Collection (WoS). Freely available software was used for network analysis at a global-level and for 10-year periods. The networks are presented as undirected-weighted graphs. Rankings by degree and betweenness were calculated to identify central and powerful network positions; modularity function was used to identify research communities. Overall 4,587 publications were identified, of which 2,528 were original research articles. Those yielded 1,644 authors' affiliated institutions and 9,907 connections for co-authorship network construction. The majority of institutions were from the USA, Canada and Europe. Collaborations with research partners on the African continent did exist, but less frequently. Around six highly connected organisations in the network were identified with powerful and broker positions. Network characteristics varied widely among the 10-year periods and evolved from 30 to 1,489 institutions and 60 to 9,176 connections respectively. Most influential actors are from public or governmental institutions whereas private sector actors, in particular the pharmaceutical industry, are largely absent. CONCLUSION/ SIGNIFICANCE: Research output on EVD has increased over time and surged during the 2014/2015 outbreak. The overall EVD research network is organised around a few key actors, signalling a concentration of expertise but leaving room for increased cooperation with other institutions especially from affected countries. Finding innovative ways to maintain support for these pivotal actors while steering the global EVD research network towards an agenda driven by agreed, prioritized needs and finding ways to better integrate currently peripheral and newer expertise may accelerate the translation of research into the development of necessary live saving products for EVD ahead of the next outbreak.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.