ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2021
Comparing approaches for modelling indirect contact transmission of infectious diseases.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fomite workshop recommendations addressing the role of surfaces in virus transmission in the built environment.mSphere · 2025Review
- Comparing approaches for modelling indirect contact transmission of infectious diseases.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mathematical models describing indirect contact transmission are an important component of infectious disease mitigation and risk assessment. A model that tracks microorganisms between compartments by coupled ordinary differential equations or a Markov chain is benchmarked against a mechanistic interpretation of the physical transfer of microorganisms from surfaces to fingers and subsequently to a susceptible person's facial mucosal membranes. The primary objective was to compare these models in their estimates of doses and changes in microorganism concentrations on hands and fomites over time. The abilities of the models to capture the impact of episodic events, such as hand hygiene, and of contact patterns were also explored. For both models, greater doses were estimated for the asymmetrical scenarios in which a more contaminated fomite was touched more often. Differing representations of hand hygiene in the Markov model did not notably impact estimated doses but affected pathogen concentration dynamics on hands. When using the Markov model, losses due to hand hygiene should be handled as separate events as opposed to time-averaging expected losses. The discrete event model demonstrated the effect of hand-to-mouth contact timing on the dose. Understanding how model design influences estimated doses is important for advancing models as reliable risk assessment tools.
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.