Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35017746›Full record

ArticleSocio-economic planning sciences2022

Modelling the persistence of Covid-19 positivity rate in Italy.

Antonio Naimoli

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Socio-economic planning sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Antonio NaimoliUniversità di Salerno, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Statistiche (DISES), Via Giovanni Paolo II, 132, 84084, Fisciano, SA, Italy.
University of Salerno · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current Covid-19 pandemic is severely affecting public health and global economies. In this context, accurately predicting its evolution is essential for planning and providing resources effectively. This paper aims at capturing the dynamics of the positivity rate (PPR) of the novel coronavirus using the Heterogeneous Autoregressive (HAR) model. The use of this model is motivated by two main empirical features arising from the analysis of PPR time series: the changing long-run level and the persistent autocorrelation structure. Compared to the most frequently used Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) models, the HAR is able to reproduce the strong persistence of the data by using components aggregated at different interval sizes, remaining parsimonious and easy to estimate. The relative merits of the proposed approach are assessed by performing a forecasting study on the Italian dataset. As a robustness check, the analysis of the positivity rate is also conducted by considering the case of the United States. The ability of the HAR-type models to predict the PPR at different horizons is evaluated through several loss functions, comparing the results with those generated by ARIMA models. The Model Confidence Set is used to test the significance of differences in the predictive performances of the models under analysis. Our findings suggest that HAR-type models significantly outperform ARIMA specifications in terms of forecasting accuracy. We also find that the PPR could represent an important metric for monitoring the evolution of hospitalizations, as the peak of patients in intensive care units occurs within 12-16 days after the peak in the positivity rate. This can help governments in planning socio-economic and health policies in advance.

Indexed as

ARIMACovid-19ForecastingHARPositivity Rate

Identifiers

PMID35017746
PMCPMC8739816
OpenAlexW4206768905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.