ArticlePhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2022
The Royal Society RAMP modelling initiative.
Article in Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Formal and informal science-policy interaction during public health emergencies of international concern: a scoping review.BMC global and public health · 2026Pooled it
- Technical challenges of modelling real-life epidemics and examples of overcoming these.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Normally, science proceeds following a well-established set of principles. Studies are done with an emphasis on correctness, are submitted to a journal editor who evaluates their relevance, and then undergo anonymous peer review by experts before publication in a journal and acceptance by the scientific community via the open literature. This process is slow, but its accuracy has served all fields of science well. In an emergency situation, different priorities come to the fore. Research and review need to be conducted quickly, and the target audience consists of policymakers. Scientists must jostle for the attention of non-specialists without sacrificing rigour, and must deal not only with peer assessment but also with media scrutiny by journalists who may have agendas other than ensuring scientific correctness. Here, we describe how the Royal Society coordinated efforts of diverse scientists to help model the coronavirus epidemic. This article is part of the theme issue 'Technical challenges of modelling real-life epidemics and examples of overcoming these'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.