ArticleJournal of medical virology2021
What does COVID-19 testing results really say? The real statistics concealed behind the accessible data.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolution of Responses to COVID-19 and Epidemiological Characteristics in South Korea.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Corrigendum.Journal of medical virology · 2022Article
- What does COVID-19 testing results really say? The real statistics concealed behind the accessible data.Journal of medical virology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrigendum.2022
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate and comprehensive testing is crucial for practitioners to portray the pandemic. Without testing there is no data; yet, the exact number of infected people cannot be determined due to the lack of comprehensive testing. The number of seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 infection is obviously relative to the extent of testing. However, the true number of infections might be still far higher than the reported values. To compare the countries based on the number of seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 infection is misleading, as there may not be enough tests being carried out to properly monitor the outbreak. In this paper, we closely look through the COVID-19 testing results. Herein, we try to draw conclusions based on the reported data: first, the presence of a possible relationship between COVID-19 transition and patients' age will be assessed. Then, the COVID-19 case fatality rate (CFR) is compared with the age-demographic data for different countries. Based on the results, a method for estimating a lower bound (minimum) for the number of actual positive cases will be developed and validated. Results of this study have shown that CFR is a metric reflecting the spread of the virus, but is a factor of the extent of testing and does not necessarily show the real size of the outbreak. Moreover, no large difference in susceptibility by age has been found. The results suggest the similarity between the age distribution of COVID-19 and the population age-demographic is improving over the course of the pandemic. In addition, countries with lower CFRs have a more similar COVID-19 age distribution, which is a result of more comprehensive testing. Finally, a method for estimation of the real number of infected people based on the age distributions, reported CFRs, and the extent of testing will be developed and validated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.