ArticlePloS one2023
Estimating the undetected emergence of COVID-19 in the US.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An epidemic model for COVID-19 transmission in Argentina: Exploration of the alternating quarantine and massive testing strategies.Mathematical biosciences · 2022Article
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
Abstract
As SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a global threat in early 2020, China enacted rapid and strict lockdown orders to prevent introductions and suppress transmission. In contrast, the United States federal government did not enact national orders. State and local authorities were left to make rapid decisions based on limited case data and scientific information to protect their communities. To support local decision making in early 2020, we developed a model for estimating the probability of an undetected COVID-19 epidemic (epidemic risk) in each US county based on the epidemiological characteristics of the virus and the number of confirmed and suspected cases. As a retrospective analysis we included county-specific reproduction numbers and found that counties with only a single reported case by March 16, 2020 had a mean epidemic risk of 71% (95% CI: 52-83%), implying COVID-19 was already spreading widely by the first detected case. By that date, 15% of US counties covering 63% of the population had reported at least one case and had epidemic risk greater than 50%. We find that a 10% increase in model estimated epidemic risk for March 16 yields a 0.53 (95% CI: 0.49-0.58) increase in the log odds that the county reported at least two additional cases in the following week. The original epidemic risk estimates made on March 16, 2020 that assumed all counties had an effective reproduction number of 3.0 are highly correlated with our retrospective estimates (r = 0.99; p<0.001) but are less predictive of subsequent case increases (AIC difference of 93.3 and 100% weight in favor of the retrospective risk estimates). Given the low rates of testing and reporting early in the pandemic, taking action upon the detection of just one or a few cases may be prudent.
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.