Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33079987›Full record

ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2021

A Comparative Analysis of Statistical Methods to Estimate the Reproduction Number in Emerging Epidemics, With Implications for the Current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic.

Megan O'Driscoll, Carole Harry, Christl A Donnelly, Anne Cori, Ilaria Dorigatti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Refining Reproduction Number Estimates to Account for Unobserved Generations of Infection in Emerging Epidemics.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Megan O'DriscollMedical Research Council Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Carole HarryMines ParisTech, Paris 75006 and Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France.
Christl A DonnellyMedical Research Council Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Anne CoriMedical Research Council Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Ilaria DorigattiMedical Research Council Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_19012Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1Wellcome Trust 213494/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic continues its rapid global spread, quantification of local transmission patterns has been, and will continue to be, critical for guiding the pandemic response. Understanding the accuracy and limitations of statistical methods to estimate the basic reproduction number, R0, in the context of emerging epidemics is therefore vital to ensure appropriate interpretation of results and the subsequent implications for control efforts.

methodsUsing simulated epidemic data, we assess the performance of 7 commonly used statistical methods to estimate R0 as they would be applied in a real-time outbreak analysis scenario: fitting to an increasing number of data points over time and with varying levels of random noise in the data. Method comparison was also conducted on empirical outbreak data, using Zika surveillance data from the 2015-2016 epidemic in Latin America and the Caribbean.

resultsWe find that most methods considered here frequently overestimate R0 in the early stages of epidemic growth on simulated data, the magnitude of which decreases when fitted to an increasing number of time points. This trend of decreasing bias over time can easily lead to incorrect conclusions about the course of the epidemic or the need for control efforts.

conclusionsWe show that true changes in pathogen transmissibility can be difficult to disentangle from changes in methodological accuracy and precision in the early stages of epidemic growth, particularly for data with significant over-dispersion. As localized epidemics of SARS-CoV-2 take hold around the globe, awareness of this trend will be important for appropriately cautious interpretation of results and subsequent guidance for control efforts.

Indexed as

COVID-19EpidemicsZika VirusZika Virus InfectionBasic Reproduction NumberCaribbean RegionHumansPandemicsReproductionSARS-CoV-2emerging epidemicsestimation method comparisonoutbreak analysisreproduction numberSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID33079987
PMCPMC7665402

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.