Best practices for estimating and reporting epidemiological delay distributions of infectious diseases.
Journal
PLoS computational biology
ISSN: 1553-7358
Titre abrégé: PLoS Comput Biol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101238922
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2024
Oct 2024
Historique:
medline:
28
10
2024
pubmed:
28
10
2024
entrez:
28
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Epidemiological delays are key quantities that inform public health policy and clinical practice. They are used as inputs for mathematical and statistical models, which in turn can guide control strategies. In recent work, we found that censoring, right truncation, and dynamical bias were rarely addressed correctly when estimating delays and that these biases were large enough to have knock-on impacts across a large number of use cases. Here, we formulate a checklist of best practices for estimating and reporting epidemiological delays. We also provide a flowchart to guide practitioners based on their data. Our examples are focused on the incubation period and serial interval due to their importance in outbreak response and modeling, but our recommendations are applicable to other delays. The recommendations, which are based on the literature and our experience estimating epidemiological delay distributions during outbreak responses, can help improve the robustness and utility of reported estimates and provide guidance for the evaluation of estimates for downstream use in transmission models or other analyses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39466727
doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012520
pii: PCOMPBIOL-D-24-00771
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1012520Informations de copyright
Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.