Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

A comparative analysis of statistical methods to estimate the reproduction number in emerging epidemics with implications for the current COVID-19 pandemic

View ORCID ProfileMegan O’Driscoll, Carole Harry, Christl A. Donnelly, Anne Cori, Ilaria Dorigatti
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101121
Megan O’Driscoll
1MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology,School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Megan O’Driscoll
  • For correspondence: m.odriscoll{at}imperial.ac.uk i.dorigatti{at}imperial.ac.uk
Carole Harry
2Mines ParisTech, Paris 75006 & Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay 91400, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christl A. Donnelly
1MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology,School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
3Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford,United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anne Cori
1MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology,School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ilaria Dorigatti
1MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology,School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: m.odriscoll{at}imperial.ac.uk i.dorigatti{at}imperial.ac.uk
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues its rapid global spread, quantification of local transmission patterns has been, and will continue to be, critical for guiding pandemic response. Understanding the accuracy and limitations of statistical methods to estimate the reproduction number, R0, in the context of emerging epidemics is therefore vital to ensure appropriate interpretation of results and the subsequent implications for control efforts. Using simulated epidemic data we assess the performance of 6 commonly-used statistical methods to estimate R0 as they would be applied in a real-time outbreak analysis scenario – fitting to an increasing number of data points over time and with varying levels of random noise in the data. Method comparison was also conducted on empirical outbreak data, using Zika surveillance data from the 2015–2016 epidemic in Latin America and the Caribbean. We find that all methods considered here frequently over-estimate R0 in the early stages of epidemic growth on simulated data, the magnitude of which decreases when fitted to an increasing number of time points. This trend of decreasing bias over time can easily lead to incorrect conclusions about the course of the epidemic or the need for control efforts. We show that true changes in pathogen transmissibility can be difficult to disentangle from changes in methodological accuracy and precision, particularly for data with significant over-dispersion. As localised epidemics of SARS-CoV-2 take hold around the globe, awareness of this trend will be important for appropriately cautious interpretation of results and subsequent guidance for control efforts.

Significance Statement In line with a real-time outbreak analysis we use simulated epidemic data to assess the performance of 6 commonly-used statistical methods to estimate the reproduction number, R0, at different time points during the epidemic growth phase. We find that estimates of R0 are frequently overestimated by these methods in the early stages of epidemic growth, with decreasing bias when fitting to an increasing number of time points. Reductions in R0 estimates obtained at sequential time points during early epidemic growth may reflect increased methodological accuracy rather than reductions in pathogen transmissibility or effectiveness of interventions. As SARS-CoV-2 continues its geographic spread, awareness of this bias will be important for appropriate interpretation of results and subsequent guidance for control efforts.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This work is jointly funded by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the UK Department for International Development (DFID) under the MRC/DFID Concordat agreement and is also part of the EDCTP2 programme supported by the European Union (MO, CAD, AC, ID); the Fondation Mathématiques Jacques Hadamard (CH); the Imperial College Undergraduate Research Opportunity Programme (CH); the Imperial College Junior Research Fellowship, Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society [grant 213494/Z/18/Z] (ID).

Author Declarations

All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.

Yes

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data and code necessary to reproduce this analysis are available at https://github.com/meganodris/R0-methods-comparison

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted May 16, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A comparative analysis of statistical methods to estimate the reproduction number in emerging epidemics with implications for the current COVID-19 pandemic
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
A comparative analysis of statistical methods to estimate the reproduction number in emerging epidemics with implications for the current COVID-19 pandemic
Megan O’Driscoll, Carole Harry, Christl A. Donnelly, Anne Cori, Ilaria Dorigatti
medRxiv 2020.05.13.20101121; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101121
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
A comparative analysis of statistical methods to estimate the reproduction number in emerging epidemics with implications for the current COVID-19 pandemic
Megan O’Driscoll, Carole Harry, Christl A. Donnelly, Anne Cori, Ilaria Dorigatti
medRxiv 2020.05.13.20101121; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101121

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Epidemiology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)