IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0275380.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A meta-epidemiological assessment of transparency indicators of infectious disease models

Author

Listed:
  • Emmanuel A Zavalis
  • John P A Ioannidis

Abstract

Mathematical models have become very influential, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data and code sharing are indispensable for reproducing them, protocol registration may be useful sometimes, and declarations of conflicts of interest (COIs) and of funding are quintessential for transparency. Here, we evaluated these features in publications of infectious disease-related models and assessed whether there were differences before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and for COVID-19 models versus models for other diseases. We analysed all PubMed Central open access publications of infectious disease models published in 2019 and 2021 using previously validated text mining algorithms of transparency indicators. We evaluated 1338 articles: 216 from 2019 and 1122 from 2021 (of which 818 were on COVID-19); almost a six-fold increase in publications within the field. 511 (39.2%) were compartmental models, 337 (25.2%) were time series, 279 (20.9%) were spatiotemporal, 186 (13.9%) were agent-based and 25 (1.9%) contained multiple model types. 288 (21.5%) articles shared code, 332 (24.8%) shared data, 6 (0.4%) were registered, and 1197 (89.5%) and 1109 (82.9%) contained COI and funding statements, respectively. There was no major changes in transparency indicators between 2019 and 2021. COVID-19 articles were less likely to have funding statements and more likely to share code. Further validation was performed by manual assessment of 10% of the articles identified by text mining as fulfilling transparency indicators and of 10% of the articles lacking them. Correcting estimates for validation performance, 26.0% of papers shared code and 41.1% shared data. On manual assessment, 5/6 articles identified as registered had indeed been registered. Of articles containing COI and funding statements, 95.8% disclosed no conflict and 11.7% reported no funding. Transparency in infectious disease modelling is relatively low, especially for data and code sharing. This is concerning, considering the nature of this research and the heightened influence it has acquired.

Suggested Citation

  • Emmanuel A Zavalis & John P A Ioannidis, 2022. "A meta-epidemiological assessment of transparency indicators of infectious disease models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-13, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0275380
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275380
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0275380
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0275380&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0275380?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stylianos Serghiou & Despina G Contopoulos-Ioannidis & Kevin W Boyack & Nico Riedel & Joshua D Wallach & John P A Ioannidis, 2021. "Assessment of transparency indicators across the biomedical literature: How open is open?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(3), pages 1-26, March.
    2. Seamus Kent & Frauke Becker & Talitha Feenstra & An Tran-Duy & Iryna Schlackow & Michelle Tew & Ping Zhang & Wen Ye & Shi Lizheng & William Herman & Phil McEwan & Wendelin Schramm & Alastair Gray & Jo, 2019. "The Challenge of Transparency and Validation in Health Economic Decision Modelling: A View from Mount Hood," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(11), pages 1305-1312, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul Tappenden & J. Jaime Caro, 2019. "Improving Transparency in Decision Models: Current Issues and Potential Solutions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(11), pages 1303-1304, November.
    2. Chou-Chun Wu & Sze-chuan Suen, 2022. "Optimizing diabetes screening frequencies for at-risk groups," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 1-23, March.
    3. Giovanni Colavizza & Lauren Cadwallader & Marcel LaFlamme & Grégory Dozot & Stéphane Lecorney & Daniel Rappo & Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, 2024. "An analysis of the effects of sharing research data, code, and preprints on citations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(10), pages 1-19, October.
    4. Harvard, Stephanie & Winsberg, Eric B., 2024. "‘Managing values’ in health economics modelling: Philosophical and practical considerations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 358(C).
    5. Pierre Johansen & Daniel Howard & Ryan Bishop & Søren Ilsøe Moreno & Kristine Buchholtz, 2020. "Systematic Literature Review and Critical Appraisal of Health Economic Models Used in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis: Potential for Improvements," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(5), pages 485-497, May.
    6. Gabriel Gonçalves da Costa & Kleber Neves & Olavo Amaral, 2024. "Estimating the replicability of highly cited clinical research (2004–2018)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(8), pages 1-24, August.
    7. Eero Raittio & Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi & Erfan Shamsoddin, 2022. "The use of the phrase “data not shown” in dental research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(8), pages 1-11, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0275380. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.