ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2022
Evaluating the Performance of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Community Levels as Leading Indicators of COVID-19 Mortality.
Article in Annals of internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Boosting" Surveillance for a More Impactful Public Health Response During Protracted and Evolving Infectious Disease Threats: Insights From the COVID-19 Pandemic.Health security · 2023Article
- Adaptive metrics for an evolving pandemic: A dynamic approach to area-level COVID-19 risk designations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the US Definitions for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Community Risk Levels.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023Article
- Adaptive metrics for an evolving pandemic A dynamic approach to area-level COVID-19 risk designations.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines low, medium, and high "COVID-19 community levels" to guide interventions, but associated mortality rates have not been reported.
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of CDC COVID-19 community level metrics as predictors of elevated community mortality risk.
designTime series analysis over the period of 30 May 2021 through 4 June 2022.
settingU.S. states and counties.
participantsU.S. population. MEASUREMENTS: CDC "COVID-19 community level" metrics based on hospital admissions, bed occupancy, and reported cases; reported COVID-19 deaths; and sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for CDC and alternative metrics.
resultsMean and median weekly mortality rates per 100 000 population after onset of high COVID-19 community level 3 weeks prior were, respectively, 2.6 and 2.4 (interquartile range [IQR], 1.7 to 3.1) across 90 high episodes in states and 4.3 and 2.1 (IQR, 0 to 5.4) across 7987 high episodes in counties. In 85 of 90 (94%) episodes in states and 4801 of 7987 (60%) episodes in counties, lagged weekly mortality after onset exceeded 0.9 per 100 000 population, and in 57 of 90 (63%) episodes in states and 4018 of 7987 (50%) episodes in counties, lagged weekly mortality after onset exceeded 2.1 per 100 000, which is equivalent to approximately 1000 daily deaths in the national population. Alternative metrics based on lower hospital admissions or case thresholds were associated with lower mortality and had higher sensitivity and negative predictive value for elevated mortality, but the CDC metrics had higher specificity and positive predictive value. Ratios between cases, hospitalizations, and deaths have varied substantially over time. LIMITATIONS: Aggregate mortality does not account for nonfatal outcomes or disparities. Continuing evolution of viral variants, immunity, clinical interventions, and public health mitigation strategies complicate prediction for future waves.
conclusionDesigning metrics for public health decision making involves tradeoffs between identifying early signals for action and avoiding undue restrictions when risks are modest. Explicit frameworks for evaluating surveillance metrics can improve transparency and decision support. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists.
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.