ArticleHealth research policy and systems2025
From pathogens to policy: using network analysis to map the knowledge base on human-zoonotic disease dynamics underpinning global pandemic policy.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Zoonotic disease dynamics (ZDD), encompassing pathogen spillover, transmission pathways and host-pathogen interactions, are widely acknowledged as drivers of emerging infectious diseases. Yet, the extent to which recent pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (PPPR) policies - the integrated frameworks guiding international efforts to anticipate and manage infectious disease threats - are grounded in this expanding body of scientific research remains unclear. This study examines how research on ZDD is cited in six influential global policy reports published between 2021 and 2023. We employed citation network analysis and qualitative profiling to compare references cited in these reports with those cited by a systematically identified set of broad-scope scientific publications on ZDD. Of the 313 references across the six reports, only 59 (19%) pertained to ZDD, a relatively small proportion considering that zoonotic diseases are framed as primary drivers of pandemic risk in these same reports. The academic literature is highly diverse and predominantly focused on specific pathogens (66%), with few studies offering a broad-scope perspective (4%) that addresses the complexity of ZDD. The citation network of the selected broad-scope literature was fragmented revealing low convergence of the knowledge base. Shared references between reports and scientific literature (n = 31) were mostly modelling studies (45%) or reviews (35%). Secondary data predominated (45%), and only 6% relied primarily on original field or laboratory data. Foundational studies were often overrepresented. This narrow and selective evidence base risks obscuring key uncertainties and limiting the diversity of perspectives that inform global PPPR strategies. Our findings highlight the value of more systematic approaches to scientific evidence use in PPPR policy documents. Strengthening the science-policy interface in PPPR requires greater engagement with emerging research, epistemic diversity, and the acknowledgment of uncertainty - essential steps toward building more adaptive, equitable and resilient strategies.
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.