ArticleBMC infectious diseases2022
Assessment of the fatality rate and transmissibility taking account of undetected cases during an unprecedented COVID-19 surge in Taiwan.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDuring the COVID-19 outbreak in Taiwan between May 11 and June 20, 2021, the observed fatality rate (FR) was 5.3%, higher than the global average at 2.1%. The high number of reported deaths suggests that many patients were not treated promptly or effectively. However, many unexplained deaths were subsequently identified as cases, indicating a few undetected cases, resulting in a higher estimate of FR. Whether the true FR is exceedingly high and what factors determine the detection of cases remain unknown. Estimating the true number of total infected cases (i.e. including undetected cases) can allow an accurate estimation of FR and effective reproduction number ([Formula: see text]).
methodsWe aimed at quantifying the time-varying FR and [Formula: see text] using the estimated true numbers of cases; and, exploring the relationship between the true case number and test and trace data. After adjusting for reporting delays, we developed a model to estimate the number of undetected cases using reported deaths that were and were not previously detected. The daily FR and [Formula: see text] were calculated using the true number of cases. Afterwards, a logistic regression model was used to assess the impact of daily testing and tracing data on the detection ratio of deaths.
resultsThe estimated true daily case number at the peak of the outbreak on May 22 was 897, which was 24.3% higher than the reported number, but the difference became less than 4% on June 9 and afterwards. After taking account of undetected cases, our estimated mean FR (4.7%) was still high but the daily rate showed a large decrease from 6.5% on May 19 to 2.8% on June 6. [Formula: see text] reached a maximum value of 6.4 on May 11, compared to 6.0 estimated using the reported case number. The decreasing proportion of undetected cases was found to be associated with the increases in the ratio of the number of tests conducted to reported cases, and the proportion of cases that are contact traced before symptom onset.
conclusionsIncreasing testing capacity and contact tracing coverage without delays not only improve parameter estimation by reducing hidden cases but may also reduce fatality rates.
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.