ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Interpreting global variations in the toll of COVID-19: The case for context and nuance in hypothesis generation and testing.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
Key points: As of January 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic was on-going, affecting populations worldwide. The potential risks of the Omicron variant (and future variants) still remain an area of active investigation. Thus, the ultimate human toll of SARS-CoV-2, and, by extension, the variations in that toll among diverse populations, remain unresolved. Nonetheless, an extensive literature on causal factors in the observed patterns of COVID-19 morbidity and cause-specific mortality has emerged-particularly at the aggregate level of analysis. This article explores potential pitfalls in the attribution of COVID outcomes to specific factors in isolation by examining a diverse set of potential factors and their interactions. Methods: We sourced published data to establish a global database of COVID-19 outcomes for 68 countries and augmented these with an array of potential explanatory covariates from a diverse set of sources. We sought population-level aggregate factors from both health- and (traditionally) non-health domains, including: (a) Population biomarkers (b) Demographics and infrastructure (c) Socioeconomics (d) Policy responses at the country-level. We analyzed these data using (OLS) regression and more flexible non-parametric methods such as recursive partitioning, that are useful in examining both potential joint factor contributions to variations in pandemic outcomes, and the identification of possible interactions among covariates across these domains. Results: Using the national obesity rates of 68 countries as an illustrative predictor covariate of COVID-19 outcomes, we observed marked inconsistencies in apparent outcomes by population. Importantly, we also documented important variations in outcomes, based on interactions of health factors with covariates in other domains that are traditionally not related to biomarkers. Finally, our results suggest that single-factor explanations of population-level COVID-19 outcomes (e.g., obesity vs. cause-specific mortality) appear to be confounded substantially by other factors. Conclusions/implications: Our methods and findings suggest that a full understanding of the toll of the COVID-19 pandemic, as would be central to preparing for similar future events, requires analysis within and among diverse variable domains, and within and among diverse populations. While this may seem apparent, the bulk of the recent literature on the pandemic has focused on one or a few of these drivers in isolation. Hypothesis generation and testing related to pandemic outcomes will benefit from accommodating the nuance of covariate interactions, in an epidemiologic context. Finally, our results add to the literature on the ecological fallacy: the attempt to infer individual drivers and outcomes from the study of population-level aggregates.
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.