ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluating a novel reproduction number estimation method: a comparative analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper presents practical methodologies for determining effective reproduction numbers, R(t), providing valuable insights for researchers and public health officials. It proposes multiple simplified approaches for estimating R(t) of infectious diseases and compares their effectiveness. These approaches include methods based on exponential, fixed (delta), normal, and gamma distributions for the generation time. The exponential and fixed generation time methods offer convenience as they rely solely on the mean generation time and the number of new infections. However, they are sensitive to the variance of the generation time distribution: the exponential method may underestimate R(t) when the variance is small, while the fixed generation time method may overestimate R(t) when the variance is large. The normal distribution method also risks underestimation, depending on the growth rate. In contrast, the gamma distribution method demonstrates greater robustness and accuracy across a variety of scenarios. A key contribution of this work is the consolidated presentation of these estimation methods, along with the novel derivation of an accurate R(t) formula based on the gamma distribution. This research offers practical guidance for selecting the most appropriate R(t) estimation method, emphasizing the importance of accounting for the specific characteristics of the infectious disease's generation time distribution.
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.