Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38032861›Full record

ReviewPLOS global public health2023

The importance of investing in data, models, experiments, team science, and public trust to help policymakers prepare for the next pandemic.

Richard Grieve, Youqi Yang, Sam Abbott, Giridhara R Babu, Malay Bhattacharyya, Natalie Dean, Stephen Evans, Nicholas Jewell, Sinéad M Langan, Woojoo Lee and 4 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers.

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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Modelling practices, data provisioning, sharing and dissemination needs for pandemic decision-making: a European survey-based modellers' perspective, 2020 to 2022.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Why does research matter to psychiatrists?Brain and neuroscience advances
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Richard GrieveCentre for Data and Statistical Science for Health (DASH), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8899-1301
Youqi YangDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6878-0127
Sam AbbottCentre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8057-8037
Giridhara R BabuIndian Institute of Public Health, Public Health Foundation of India, Bengaluru, India.
Malay BhattacharyyaMachine Intelligence Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India.
Natalie DeanDepartment of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Stephen EvansCentre for Data and Statistical Science for Health (DASH), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1474-2596
Nicholas JewellCentre for Data and Statistical Science for Health (DASH), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Sinéad M LanganDepartment of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Woojoo LeeDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7447-7045
Geert MolenberghsInteruniversity Institute for Biostatistics and Statistical Bioinformatics (I-BioStat), Universiteit Hasselt & KU Leuven, Hasselt, Belgium.
Liam SmeethDepartment of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9168-6022
Elizabeth WilliamsonCentre for Data and Statistical Science for Health (DASH), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Bhramar MukherjeeDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.

Funding

Emerging methods and applications for test-negative studies of of infectious disease interventionsR01AI148127 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI JEWELL, NICHOLAS P · 2020 to 2023
$1.8M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI148127Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about valuable insights regarding models, data, and experiments. In this narrative review, we summarised the existing literature on these three themes, exploring the challenges of providing forecasts, the requirement for real-time linkage of health-related datasets, and the role of 'experimentation' in evaluating interventions. This literature review encourages us to broaden our perspective for the future, acknowledging the significance of investing in models, data, and experimentation, but also to invest in areas that are conceptually more abstract: the value of 'team science', the need for public trust in science, and in establishing processes for using science in policy. Policy-makers rely on model forecasts early in a pandemic when there is little data, and it is vital to communicate the assumptions, limitations, and uncertainties (theme 1). Linked routine data can provide critical information, for example, in establishing risk factors for adverse outcomes but are often not available quickly enough to make a real-time impact. The interoperability of data resources internationally is required to facilitate sharing across jurisdictions (theme 2). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provided timely evidence on the efficacy and safety of vaccinations and pharmaceuticals but were largely conducted in higher income countries, restricting generalisability to low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Trials for non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were almost non-existent which was a missed opportunity (theme 3). Building on these themes from the narrative review, we underscore the importance of three other areas that need investment for effective evidence-driven policy-making. The COVID-19 response relied on strong multidisciplinary research infrastructures, but funders and academic institutions need to do more to incentivise team science (4). To enhance public trust in the use of scientific evidence for policy, researchers and policy-makers must work together to clearly communicate uncertainties in current evidence and any need to change policy as evidence evolves (5). Timely policy decisions require an established two-way process between scientists and policy makers to make the best use of evidence (6). For effective preparedness against future pandemics, it is essential to establish models, data, and experiments as fundamental pillars, complemented by efforts in planning and investment towards team science, public trust, and evidence-based policy-making across international communities. The paper concludes with a 'call to actions' for both policy-makers and researchers.

Identifiers

PMID38032861
PMCPMC10688710

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.