Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35907510›Full record

ArticleMathematical biosciences2022

Minimising the use of costly control measures in an epidemic elimination strategy: A simple mathematical model.

Michael J Plank

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Mathematical biosciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

1 author.

Michael J PlankSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand. Electronic address: michael.plank@canterbury.ac.nz.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Countries such as New Zealand, Australia and Taiwan responded to the Covid-19 pandemic with an elimination strategy. This involves a combination of strict border controls with a rapid and effective response to eliminate border-related re-introductions. An important question for decision makers is, when there is a new re-introduction, what is the right threshold at which to implement strict control measures designed to reduce the effective reproduction number below 1. Since it is likely that there will be multiple re-introductions, responding at too low a threshold may mean repeatedly implementing controls unnecessarily for outbreaks that would self-eliminate even without control measures. On the other hand, waiting for too high a threshold to be reached creates a risk that controls will be needed for a longer period of time, or may completely fail to contain the outbreak. Here, we use a highly idealised branching process model of small border-related outbreaks to address this question. We identify important factors that affect the choice of threshold in order to minimise the expect time period for which control measures are in force. We find that the optimal threshold for introducing controls decreases with the effective reproduction number, and increases with overdispersion of the offspring distribution and with the effectiveness of control measures. Our results are not intended as a quantitative decision-making algorithm. However, they may help decision makers understand when a wait-and-see approach is likely to be preferable over an immediate response.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsBasic Reproduction NumberDisease OutbreaksHumansModels, TheoreticalBranching processEpidemiological modellingInfectious disease modellingPublic health

Identifiers

PMID35907510
PMCPMC9327244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.