Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36511377›Full record

ArticleJournal of research in health sciences2022

Comparison of the Effective Reproduction Number (Rt) Estimation Methods of COVID-19 Using Simulation Data Based on Available Data from Iran, USA, UK, India, and Brazil.

Ali Karamoozian, Abbas Bahrampour

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of research in health sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ali KaramoozianDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
Abbas BahrampourDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate determination of the effective reproduction number (Rt) is a very important strategy in the epidemiology of contagious diseases, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study compares different methods of estimating the Rt of susceptible population to identify the most accurate method for estimating Rt. STUDY

designA secondary study.

methodsThe value of Rt was estimated using attack rate (AR), exponential growth (EG), maximum likelihood (ML), time-dependent (TD), and sequential Bayesian (SB) methods, for Iran, the United States, the United Kingdom, India, and Brazil from June to October 2021. In order to accurately compare these methods, a simulation study was designed using forty scenarios.

resultsThe lowest mean square error (MSE) was observed for TD and ML methods, with 15 and 12 cases, respectively. Therefore, considering the estimated values of Rt based on the TD method, it was found that Rt values in the United Kingdom (1.33; 95% CI: 1.14-1.52) and the United States (1.25; 95% CI: 1.12-1.38) substantially have been more than those in other countries, such as Iran (1.07; 95% CI: 0.95-1.19), India (0.99; 95% CI: 0.89-1.08), and Brazil (0.98; 95% CI: 0.84-1.14) from June to October 2021.

conclusionThe important result of this study is that TD and ML methods lead to a more accurate estimation of Rt of population than other methods. Therefore, in order to monitor and determine the epidemic situation and have a more accurate prediction of the incidence rate, as well as control COVID-19 and similar diseases, the use of these two methods is suggested to more accurately estimate Rt.

Indexed as

COVID-19EpidemicsBasic Reproduction NumberBayes TheoremHumansIndiaCOVID-19Effective reproduction number (Rt)Maximum likelihood estimationSimulationTime-dependent

Identifiers

PMID36511377
PMCPMC10422149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.