ArticlePloS one2023
Better data for decision-making through Bayesian imputation of suppressed provisional COVID-19 death counts.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo facilitate use of timely, granular, and publicly available data on COVID-19 mortality, we provide a method for imputing suppressed COVID-19 death counts in the National Center for Health Statistic's 2020 provisional mortality data by quarter, county, and age.
methodsWe used a Bayesian approach to impute suppressed COVID-19 death counts by quarter, county, and age in provisional data for 3,138 US counties. Our model accounts for multilevel data structures; numerous zero death counts among persons aged <50 years, rural counties, early quarters in 2020; highly right-skewed distributions; and different levels of data granularity (county, state or locality, and national levels). We compared three models with different prior assumptions of suppressed COVID-19 deaths, including noninformative priors (M1), the same weakly informative priors for all age groups (M2), and weakly informative priors that differ by age (M3) to impute the suppressed death counts. After the imputed suppressed counts were available, we assessed three prior assumptions at the national, state/locality, and county level, respectively. Finally, we compared US counties by two types of COVID-19 death rates, crude (CDR) and age-standardized death rates (ASDR), which can be estimated only through imputing suppressed death counts.
resultsWithout imputation, the total COVID-19 death counts estimated from the raw data underestimated the reported national COVID-19 deaths by 18.60%. Using imputed data, we overestimated the national COVID-19 deaths by 3.57% (95% CI: 3.37%-3.80%) in model M1, 2.23% (95% CI: 2.04%-2.43%) in model M2, and 2.96% (95% CI: 2.76%-3.16%) in model M3 compared with the national report. The top 20 counties that were most affected by COVID-19 mortality were different between CDR and ASDR.
conclusionsBayesian imputation of suppressed county-level, age-specific COVID-19 deaths in US provisional data can improve county ASDR estimates and aid public health officials in identifying disparities in deaths from COVID-19.
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.