ArticleScientific reports2022
An analysis of the accuracy of COVID-19 country transmission classification.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate epidemiological classification guidelines are essential to ensure implementation of adequate public health and social measures. Here, we investigate two frameworks, published in March 2020 and November 2020 by the World Health Organization (WHO) to categorise transmission risks of COVID-19 infection, and assess how well the countries' self-reported classification tracked their underlying epidemiological situation. We used three modelling approaches: an ordinal longitudinal model, a proportional odds model and a machine learning One-Rule classification algorithm. We applied these models to 202 countries' daily transmission classification and epidemiological data, and study classification accuracy over time for the period April 2020 to June 2021, when WHO stopped publishing country classifications. Overall, the first published WHO classification, purely qualitative, lacked accuracy. The incidence rate within the previous 14 days was the best predictor with an average accuracy throughout the period of study of 61.5%. However, when each week was assessed independently, the models returned predictive accuracies above 50% only in the first weeks of April 2020. In contrast, the second classification, quantitative in nature, increased significantly the accuracy of transmission labels, with values as high as 94%.
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.