ArticleJournal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics2022
Bayesian imputation of COVID-19 positive test counts for nowcasting under reporting lag.
Article in Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nowcasting methods to improve the performance of respiratory sentinel surveillance: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Collaborative nowcasting of COVID-19 hospitalization incidences in Germany.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Nowcasting COVID-19 deaths in England by age and region.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics · 2022Article
- Bayesian imputation of COVID-19 positive test counts for nowcasting under reporting lag.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics · 2022Article
- Improving local prevalence estimates of SARS-CoV-2 infections using a causal debiasing framework.Nature microbiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Obtaining up to date information on the number of UK COVID-19 regional infections is hampered by the reporting lag in positive test results for people with COVID-19 symptoms. In the UK, for 'Pillar 2' swab tests for those showing symptoms, it can take up to five days for results to be collated. We make use of the stability of the under reporting process over time to motivate a statistical temporal model that infers the final total count given the partial count information as it arrives. We adopt a Bayesian approach that provides for subjective priors on parameters and a hierarchical structure for an underlying latent intensity process for the infection counts. This results in a smoothed time-series representation nowcasting the expected number of daily counts of positive tests with uncertainty bands that can be used to aid decision making. Inference is performed using sequential Monte Carlo.
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.