Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32826332›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2020

Estimating unobserved SARS-CoV-2 infections in the United States.

T Alex Perkins, Sean M Cavany, Sean M Moore, Rachel J Oidtman, Anita Lerch, Marya Poterek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Reconstructing the early spatial spread of pandemic respiratory viruses in the United States.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. How Will AI Shape the Future of Pandemic Response? Early Clues From Data Analytics.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

T Alex PerkinsDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556; taperkins@nd.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7518-4014
Sean M CavanyDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556.
Sean M MooreDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556.
Rachel J OidtmanDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556.
Anita LerchDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556.ORCID 0000-0003-3062-5901
Marya PoterekDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556.ORCID 0000-0001-6745-4283

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

By March 2020, COVID-19 led to thousands of deaths and disrupted economic activity worldwide. As a result of narrow case definitions and limited capacity for testing, the number of unobserved severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections during its initial invasion of the United States remains unknown. We developed an approach for estimating the number of unobserved infections based on data that are commonly available shortly after the emergence of a new infectious disease. The logic of our approach is, in essence, that there are bounds on the amount of exponential growth of new infections that can occur during the first few weeks after imported cases start appearing. Applying that logic to data on imported cases and local deaths in the United States through 12 March, we estimated that 108,689 (95% posterior predictive interval [95% PPI]: 1,023 to 14,182,310) infections occurred in the United States by this date. By comparing the model's predictions of symptomatic infections with local cases reported over time, we obtained daily estimates of the proportion of symptomatic infections detected by surveillance. This revealed that detection of symptomatic infections decreased throughout February as exponential growth of infections outpaced increases in testing. Between 24 February and 12 March, we estimated an increase in detection of symptomatic infections, which was strongly correlated (median: 0.98; 95% PPI: 0.66 to 0.98) with increases in testing. These results suggest that testing was a major limiting factor in assessing the extent of SARS-CoV-2 transmission during its initial invasion of the United States.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalBetacoronavirusClinical Laboratory TechniquesCommunicable Diseases, EmergingCommunity-Acquired InfectionsCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingHumansPandemicsPneumonia, ViralPublic Health SurveillanceSARS-CoV-2United Statescoronavirusemerging infectious diseasemathematical modelingpublic health surveillancesilent transmission

Identifiers

PMID32826332
PMCPMC7486725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.