ArticleBMJ open2023
Understanding COVID-19 reporting behaviour to support political decision-making: a retrospective cross-sectional study of COVID-19 data reported to WHO.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Mortality Prediction in Intensive Care Unit Patients Based on Serum Metabolomic Fingerprint.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDaily COVID-19 data reported by WHO may provide the basis for political ad hoc decisions including travel restrictions. Data reported by countries, however, are heterogeneous and metrics to evaluate its quality are scarce. In this work, we analysed COVID-19 case counts provided by WHO and developed tools to evaluate country-specific reporting behaviours.
methodsIn this retrospective cross-sectional study, COVID-19 data reported daily to WHO from 3 January 2020 until 14 June 2021 were analysed. We proposed the concepts of binary reporting rate and relative reporting behaviour and performed descriptive analyses for all countries with these metrics. We developed a score to evaluate the consistency of incidence and binary reporting rates. Further, we performed spectral clustering of the binary reporting rate and relative reporting behaviour to identify salient patterns in these metrics.
resultsOur final analysis included 222 countries and regions. Reporting scores varied between -0.17, indicating discrepancies between incidence and binary reporting rate, and 1.0 suggesting high consistency of these two metrics. Median reporting score for all countries was 0.71 (IQR 0.55-0.87). Descriptive analyses of the binary reporting rate and relative reporting behaviour showed constant reporting with a slight 'weekend effect' for most countries, while spectral clustering demonstrated that some countries had even more complex reporting patterns.
conclusionThe majority of countries reported COVID-19 cases when they did have cases to report. The identification of a slight 'weekend effect' suggests that COVID-19 case counts reported in the middle of the week may represent the best data basis for political ad hoc decisions. A few countries, however, showed unusual or highly irregular reporting that might require more careful interpretation. Our score system and cluster analyses might be applied by epidemiologists advising policy makers to consider country-specific reporting behaviours in political ad hoc decisions.
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.