ArticleArXiv2023
Incorporating testing volume into estimation of effective reproduction number dynamics.
Article in ArXiv, 2023. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Branching process inspired models are widely used to estimate the effective reproduction number -- a useful summary statistic describing an infectious disease outbreak -- using counts of new cases. Case data is a real-time indicator of changes in the reproduction number, but is challenging to work with because cases fluctuate due to factors unrelated to the number of new infections. We develop a new model that incorporates the number of diagnostic tests as a surveillance model covariate. Using simulated data and data from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in California, we demonstrate that incorporating tests leads to improved performance over the state-of-the-art.
Identifiers
35979401PMC9383801What 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.