Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34053265›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2021

Epidemic interventions: insights from classic results.

Julia R Gog, T Déirdre Hollingsworth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Final-Size Solutions for SIRI Models with Vaccination.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Visualization for epidemiological modelling: challenges, solutions, reflections and recommendations.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Modelling that shaped the early COVID-19 pandemic response in the UK.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021
    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.

Julia R GogDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0WA, UK.
T Déirdre HollingsworthBig Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/V038613/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Analytical expressions and approximations from simple models have performed a pivotal role in our understanding of infectious disease epidemiology. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, while there has been proliferation of increasingly complex models, still the most basic models have provided the core framework for our thinking and interpreting policy decisions. Here, classic results are presented that give insights into both the role of transmission-reducing interventions (such as social distancing) in controlling an emerging epidemic, and also what would happen if insufficient control is applied. Though these are simple results from the most basic of epidemic models, they give valuable benchmarks for comparison with the outputs of more complex modelling approaches. This article is part of the theme issue 'Modelling that shaped the early COVID-19 pandemic response in the UK'.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalPandemicsCOVID-19HumansPhysical DistancingSARS-CoV-2TravelUnited Kingdomepidemicnon-pharmacutical interventionspandemicSIR model

Identifiers

PMID34053265
PMCPMC8165583

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.