ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Estimating the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 transmission in the Netherlands.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Estimating the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 transmission in the Netherlands.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were taken to mitigate virus spread. Assessing their effectiveness is essential in policy support but often challenging, due to interactions between measures, the increase of immunity, variant emergence and seasonal effects. These factors make results difficult to interpret over a long period of time. Using a mechanistic approach, we estimate the overall effectiveness of sets of NPIs in reducing transmission over time. Our approach quantifies the effectiveness by comparing the observed effective reproduction number, which is the number of secondary infections caused by a typical infected person, to a counterfactual reproduction number if no NPIs were taken. The counterfactual reproduction number accounts for seasonal variations in transmissibility, for emergence of more transmissible variants, and for changes in immunity in the population. The immune fraction is reconstructed from age-specific data of longitudinal serological surveys and vaccination coverage, taking immunity loss due to waning into account. We estimate the effectiveness of NPIs in the Netherlands from the start of the pandemic in March 2020 until the emergence of the Omicron variant in November 2021. We find that the effectiveness of NPIs was high in March and April 2020 during the first pandemic wave and in January and February 2021, coinciding with the two periods with the most stringent measures. For both periods the effectiveness was estimated at approximately 50%, i.e., without any measures the reproduction number would have been twice as high as observed. The proposed approach synthesises available epidemiological data from different sources to reconstruct the population-level immunity. With sufficient data, it can be applied not only to COVID-19 but also to other directly transmitted diseases, such as influenza. This method provides a near real-time assessment of the effectiveness of control measures when the required data are available.
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.