ArticleScientific reports2023
Estimating infection fatality risk and ascertainment bias of COVID-19 in Osaka, Japan from February 2020 to January 2022.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real Clinical Effectiveness of Molnupiravir Against 30-day Mortality Among 74 541 SARS-CoV-2-Positive Patients: A Nationwide Cohort Study From the Czech Republic.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Trial
- Using forensic autopsy data to estimate the age-specific infection fatality risk of COVID-19.Epidemiology and infection · 2026Article
- Science-based exit from stringent countermeasures against COVID-19: Mortality prediction using immune landscape between 2021 and 2022 in Japan.Vaccine: X · 2024Article
- Modelling COVID-19 transmission dynamics in Laos under non-pharmaceutical interventions, vaccination, and replacement of SARS-CoV-2 variants.BMC global and public health · 2024Article
- Estimating actual SARS-CoV-2 infections from secondary data.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Assessing the COVID-19 vaccination program during the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) epidemic in early 2022, Tokyo.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
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 present study aimed to estimate the infection fatality risk (IFR) and ascertainment bias of SARS-CoV-2 for six epidemic waves in Japan from February 2020 to January 2022. We used two types of datasets: (i) surveillance-based datasets containing the cumulative numbers of confirmed cases and deaths in each epidemic wave and (ii) seroepidemiological datasets conducted in a serial cross-sectional manner. Smoothing spline function was employed to reconstruct the age-specific cumulative incidence of infection. We found that IFR was highest during the first wave, and the second highest during the fourth wave, caused by the Alpha variant. Once vaccination became widespread, IFR decreased considerably among adults aged 40 years plus during the fifth wave caused by the Delta variant, although the epidemic size of fifth wave was the largest before the Omicron variant emerged. We also found that ascertainment bias was relatively high during the first and second waves and, notably, RT-PCR testing capacity during these early periods was limited. Improvements in the ascertainment were seen during the third and fourth waves. Once the Omicron variant began spreading, IFR diminished while ascertainment bias was considerably elevated.
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.