ArticlePLoS computational biology2022
Fine-scale estimation of effective reproduction numbers for dengue surveillance.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epidemiological Trends and Public Health Implications of Dengue Fever in Zhejiang Province, China: A Decadal Analysis from National to Cangnan Perspectives.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Nowcasting Vector Mosquito Abundance and Determining Its Association With Malaria Epidemics in South Korea.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2025Article
- Associations between Dengue Incidence, Ecological Factors, and Anthropogenic Factors in Singapore.Viruses · 2023Article
- Singapore's 5 decades of dengue prevention and control-Implications for global dengue control.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Temporal Variations and Spatial Clusters of Dengue in Thailand: Longitudinal Study before and during the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effective reproduction number Rt is an epidemiological quantity that provides an instantaneous measure of transmission potential of an infectious disease. While dengue is an increasingly important vector-borne disease, few have used Rt as a measure to inform public health operations and policy for dengue. This study demonstrates the utility of Rt for real time dengue surveillance. Using nationally representative, geo-located dengue case data from Singapore over 2010-2020, we estimated Rt by modifying methods from Bayesian (EpiEstim) and filtering (EpiFilter) approaches, at both the national and local levels. We conducted model assessment of Rt from each proposed method and determined exogenous temporal and spatial drivers for Rt in relation to a wide range of environmental and anthropogenic factors. At the national level, both methods achieved satisfactory model performance (R2EpiEstim = 0.95, R2EpiFilter = 0.97), but disparities in performance were large at finer spatial scales when case counts are low (MASE EpiEstim = 1.23, MASEEpiFilter = 0.59). Impervious surfaces and vegetation with structure dominated by human management (without tree canopy) were positively associated with increased transmission intensity. Vegetation with structure dominated by human management (with tree canopy), on the other hand, was associated with lower dengue transmission intensity. We showed that dengue outbreaks were preceded by sustained periods of high transmissibility, demonstrating the potential of Rt as a dengue surveillance tool for detecting large rises in dengue cases. Real time estimation of Rt at the fine scale can assist public health agencies in identifying high transmission risk areas and facilitating localised outbreak preparedness and response.
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.