ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2021
Effect of Adjustment for Case Misclassification and Infection Date Uncertainty on Estimates of COVID-19 Effective Reproduction Number.
Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Further Improving Analysis of Date-Based COVID-19 Surveillance Data.American journal of public health · 2022Article
- Estimation of the Serial Interval and the Effective Reproductive Number of COVID-19 Outbreak Using Contact Data in Burkina Faso, a Sub-Saharan African Country.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSurveillance data captured during the COVID-19 pandemic may not be optimal to inform a public health response, because it is biased by imperfect test accuracy, differential access to testing, and uncertainty in date of infection.
methodsWe downloaded COVID-19 time-series surveillance data from the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment by report and illness onset dates for 9 March 2020 to 30 September 2020. We used existing Bayesian methods to first adjust for misclassification in testing and surveillance, followed by deconvolution of date of infection. We propagated forward uncertainty from each step corresponding to 10,000 posterior time-series of doubly adjusted epidemic curves. The effective reproduction number (Rt), a parameter of principal interest in tracking the pandemic, gauged the impact of the adjustment on inference.
resultsObserved period prevalence was 1.3%; median of the posterior of true (adjusted) prevalence was 1.7% (95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.4%, 1.8%). Sensitivity of surveillance declined over the course of the epidemic from a median of 88.8% (95% CrI: 86.3%, 89.8%) to a median of 60.8% (95% CrI: 60.1%, 62.6%). The mean (minimum, maximum) values of Rt were higher and more variable by report date, 1.12 (0.77, 4.13), compared to those following adjustment, 1.05 (0.89, 1.73). The epidemic curve by report date tended to overestimate Rt early on and be more susceptible to fluctuations in data.
conclusionAdjusting for epidemic curves based on surveillance data is necessary if estimates of missed cases and the effective reproduction number play a role in management of the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.