Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31213182›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2019

Concurrent assessment of epidemiological and operational uncertainties for optimal outbreak control: Ebola as a case study.

Shou-Li Li, Matthew J Ferrari, Ottar N Bjørnstad, Michael C Runge, Christopher J Fonnesbeck, Michael J Tildesley, David Pannell, Katriona Shea

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Coupled models of genomic surveillance and evolving pandemics with applications for timely public health interventions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Shou-Li Li1 Department of Biology and Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics, The Pennsylvania State University , University Park, PA , USA.
Matthew J Ferrari1 Department of Biology and Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics, The Pennsylvania State University , University Park, PA , USA.
Ottar N Bjørnstad1 Department of Biology and Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics, The Pennsylvania State University , University Park, PA , USA.
Michael C Runge3 US Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center , Laurel, MD , USA.
Christopher J Fonnesbeck4 Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine , Nashville, TN , USA.
Michael J Tildesley5 Systems Biology and Infectious Disease Epidemiology Research Centre, School of Life Sciences and Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick , Coventry CV4 7AL , UK.
David Pannell6 School of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia (M087) , Crawley, WA 6009 , Australia.
Katriona Shea1 Department of Biology and Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics, The Pennsylvania State University , University Park, PA , USA.

Funding

Linking models and policy: Using active adaptive management for optimal control of disease outbreaksR01GM105247 · NIGMS · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE · PI FERRARI, MATTHEW · 2012 to 2016
$1.3M
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/K010972/4NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM105247
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Determining how best to manage an infectious disease outbreak may be hindered by both epidemiological uncertainty (i.e. about epidemiological processes) and operational uncertainty (i.e. about the effectiveness of candidate interventions). However, these two uncertainties are rarely addressed concurrently in epidemic studies. We present an approach to simultaneously address both sources of uncertainty, to elucidate which source most impedes decision-making. In the case of the 2014 West African Ebola outbreak, epidemiological uncertainty is represented by a large ensemble of published models. Operational uncertainty about three classes of interventions is assessed for a wide range of potential intervention effectiveness. We ranked each intervention by caseload reduction in each model, initially assuming an unlimited budget as a counterfactual. We then assessed the influence of three candidate cost functions relating intervention effectiveness and cost for different budget levels. The improvement in management outcomes to be gained by resolving uncertainty is generally high in this study; appropriate information gain could reduce expected caseload by more than 50%. The ranking of interventions is jointly determined by the underlying epidemiological process, the effectiveness of the interventions and the size of the budget. An epidemiologically effective intervention might not be optimal if its costs outweigh its epidemiological benefit. Under higher-budget conditions, resolution of epidemiological uncertainty is most valuable. When budgets are tight, however, operational and epidemiological uncertainty are equally important. Overall, our study demonstrates that significant reductions in caseload could result from a careful examination of both epidemiological and operational uncertainties within the same modelling structure. This approach can be applied to decision-making for the management of other diseases for which multiple models and multiple interventions are available.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingDisease OutbreaksEpidemicsHemorrhagic Fever, EbolaHumansUncertaintydecision theorydisease managementepidemiological uncertaintyoperational uncertaintyoptimal control

Identifiers

PMID31213182
PMCPMC6599986

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.