Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 21, Number 8—August 2015

Estimates of Outbreak Risk from New Introductions of Ebola with Immediate and Delayed Transmission Control

Damon J.A. TothComments to Author , Adi V. Gundlapalli, Karim Khader, Warren B.P. Pettey, Michael Rubin, Frederick R. Adler, and Matthew H. Samore
Author affiliations: University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA (D.J.A. Toth, A.V. Gundlapalli, K. Khader, W.B.P. Pettey, M.A. Rubin, F.R. Adler, M.H. Samore); US Department of Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City (D.J.A. Toth, A.V. Gundlapalli, K. Khader, W.B.P. Pettey, M.A. Rubin, M.H. Samore).

Main Article

Table 2

Summary of Ebola data and parameter estimates*

Patient group No. Transmissions R estimate (90% CI) k estimate (90% CI)
All 56 29 0.5 (0.2–1.0) 0.09 (0.03–0.2)
Traveler 7 19 2.9 (0.6–6.1) 0.4 (0.2–1.3)
Evacuated patient 20 1 0.05 (0–0.1)
Patient with locally acquired Ebola 29 9 0.3 (0.1–0.5) 0.5 (0.2–∞)

*Cases were included if the patient spent any of the infectious period in a country other than Guinea, Liberia, or Sierra Leone. The 56 patients are split into 3 mutually exclusive subgroups, depending on the patients’ circumstances. Parameters R and k of the negative binomial distribution are the reproductive number and dispersion parameter, respectively. Goodness of fit was not rejected by a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (p>0.6 in all cases).

Main Article

Page created: July 14, 2015
Page updated: July 14, 2015
Page reviewed: July 14, 2015
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.