ArticlePhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2025
A renewal-equation approach to estimating
Article in Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robust estimation of the time-dependent reproduction number in the presence of weekend reporting effects.BMC global and public health · 2026Article
- Real-time inference of the end of an outbreak: Temporally aggregated disease incidence data and under-reporting.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2025Article
- A renewal-equation approach to estimatingPhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025Article
- Challenges and opportunities in uncertainty quantification for healthcare and biological systems.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During infectious disease outbreaks, delays in case reporting mean that the time series of cases is unreliable, particularly for those cases occurring most recently. This means that real-time estimates of the time-varying reproduction number, [Formula: see text], are often made using a time series of cases only up until a time period sufficiently far in the past that there is some confidence in the case counts. This means that the most recent [Formula: see text] estimates are usually out of date, inducing lags in the response of public health authorities. Here, we introduce an [Formula: see text] estimation method, which makes use of the retrospective updates to case time series which happen as more cases that occurred historically enter the health system; these data encode within them information about the reporting delays, which our method also estimates. These estimates, in turn, allow us to estimate the true count of cases occurring most recently allowing up-to-date estimates of [Formula: see text]. Our method simultaneously estimates the reporting delays, true historical case counts and [Formula: see text] in a single Bayesian framework, allowing the uncertainty in each of these quantities to be accounted for. We apply our method to both simulated and real outbreak data, which shows that the method substantially improves upon naive estimates of [Formula: see text] which do not account for reporting delays. Our method is available in an open-source fully tested R package,
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.