ArticlePLoS computational biology2021
Correction: Practical considerations for measuring the effective reproductive number, Rt.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 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.
- Optimal algorithms for controlling infectious diseases in real time using noisy infection data.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Application and Significance of SIRVB Model in Analyzing COVID-19 Dynamics.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum for
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008409.].
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.