ArticleScientific reports2026
Uncertainty and inconsistency of COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical intervention effects with multiple competitive statistical models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantifying the effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) is essential for formulating lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. To enable a more reliable and rigorous evaluation of NPIs based on time series data, we reanalyse the official evaluation of NPIs in Germany. As the first part of a multi-step validation and verification project, we focus on properly analysing statistical uncertainties for time series data. Using a set of 9 competitive statistical methods for estimating the effects of NPIs and other determinants of disease spread on the effective reproduction number [Formula: see text], we find significantly wider confidence intervals than the official evaluation. In addition to vaccination and seasonality, only few NPIs – such as restrictions in public spaces – can be confidently associated with variations in [Formula: see text], but even then effect sizes have large uncertainties. Furthermore, due to multicollinearity in NPI activation patterns, it is difficult to distinguish potential effects of NPIs in public spaces from other interventions that came into force early, such as physical distancing. In future, NPIs should be more carefully designed and accompanied by plans for data collections to allow for a timely evaluation of benefits and harms as a basis for an effective and proportionate response.
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.