ArticleJournal of theoretical biology2022
Doubling time of infectious diseases.
Article in Journal of theoretical biology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The concept of doubling time has been increasingly used since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but its characteristics are not well understood, especially as applied to infectious disease epidemiology. The present study aims to be a practical guide to monitoring the doubling time of infectious diseases. Via simulation exercise, we clarify the epidemiological characteristics of doubling time, allowing possible interpretations. We show that the commonly believed relationship between the doubling time and intrinsic growth rate in population ecology does not strictly apply to infectious diseases, and derive the correct relationship between the two. We examined the impact of varying (i) the growth rate, (ii) the starting point of counting cumulative number of cases, and (iii) the length of observation on statistical estimation of doubling time. It was difficult to recover values of growth rate from doubling time, especially when the growth rate was small. Starting time period is critical when the statistical estimation of doubling time occurs during the course of an epidemic. The length of observation was critical in determining the overall magnitude of doubling time, and when only the latest 1-2 weeks' data were used, the resulting doubling time was very short, regardless of the intrinsic growth rate r. We suggest that doubling time estimates of infectious disease epidemics should at a minimum be accompanied by descriptions of (i) the starting time at which the cumulative count is initiated and (ii) the length of observation.
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.