Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33413154›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021

Incorporating and addressing testing bias within estimates of epidemic dynamics for SARS-CoV-2.

Yasir Suhail, Junaid Afzal, Kshitiz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

3 authors.

Yasir SuhailDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Connecticut Health, Farmington, CT, USA. yasir.suhail@uconn.edu.
Junaid AfzalDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
KshitizDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Connecticut Health, Farmington, CT, USA. kshitiz@uchc.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4241-9427

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe disease burden of SARS-CoV-2 as measured by tests from various localities, and at different time points present varying estimates of infection and fatality rates. Models based on these acquired data may suffer from systematic errors and large estimation variances due to the biases associated with testing. An unbiased randomized testing to estimate the true fatality rate is still missing.

methodsHere, we characterize the effect of incidental sampling bias in the estimation of epidemic dynamics. Towards this, we explicitly modeled for sampling bias in an augmented compartment model to predict epidemic dynamics. We further calculate the bias from differences in disease prediction from biased, and randomized sampling, proposing a strategy to obtain unbiased estimates.

resultsOur simulations demonstrate that sampling biases in favor of patients with higher disease manifestation could significantly affect direct estimates of infection and fatality rates calculated from the numbers of confirmed cases and deaths, and serological testing can partially mitigate these biased estimates.

conclusionsThe augmented compartmental model allows the explicit modeling of different testing policies and their effects on disease estimates. Our calculations for the dependence of expected confidence on a randomized sample sizes, show that relatively small sample sizes can provide statistically significant estimates for SARS-CoV-2 related death rates.

Indexed as

COVID-19 TestingBiasCOVID-19HumansModels, StatisticalPandemicsPneumonia, ViralSampling StudiesSARS-CoV-2Covid-19, inaccurate epidemic predictions, overestimation of COVID death rateEpidemiologySampling biasSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID33413154
PMCPMC7789897

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.