ArticleAmerican journal of public health2021
Considerations for Improving Reporting and Analysis of Date-Based COVID-19 Surveillance Data by Public Health Agencies.
Article in American journal of public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital Public Reporting Systems for Evaluating Health Care Quality: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Pooled it
- Recommendations for the analysis of leading indicators in epidemic surveillance.PLOS digital health · 2026Review
- Use of Random Domain Intercept Technology to Track COVID-19 Vaccination Rates in Real Time Across the United States: Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Transmission Potential of the Omicron Variant of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in South Korea, 25 November 2021-8 January 2022.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Further Improving Analysis of Date-Based COVID-19 Surveillance Data.American journal of public health · 2022Article
- Hennessee et al. Respond.American journal of public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
More than a year after the first domestic COVID-19 cases, the United States does not have national standards for COVID-19 surveillance data analysis and public reporting. This has led to dramatic variations in surveillance practices among public health agencies, which analyze and present newly confirmed cases by a wide variety of dates. The choice of which date to use should be guided by a balance between interpretability and epidemiological relevance. Report date is easily interpretable, generally representative of outbreak trends, and available in surveillance data sets. These features make it a preferred date for public reporting and visualization of surveillance data, although it is not appropriate for epidemiological analyses of outbreak dynamics. Symptom onset date is better suited for such analyses because of its clinical and epidemiological relevance. However, using symptom onset for public reporting of new confirmed cases can cause confusion because reporting lags result in an artificial decline in recent cases. We hope this discussion is a starting point toward a more standardized approach to date-based surveillance. Such standardization could improve public comprehension, policymaking, and outbreak response. (
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.