ArticlePloS one2023
Estimating the time-varying reproduction number for COVID-19 in South Africa during the first four waves using multiple measures of incidence for public and private sectors across four waves.
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.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to quantify transmission trends in South Africa during the first four waves of the COVID-19 pandemic using estimates of the time-varying reproduction number (R) and to compare the robustness of R estimates based on three different data sources, and using data from public and private sector service providers.
methodsR was estimated from March 2020 through April 2022, nationally and by province, based on time series of rt-PCR-confirmed cases, hospitalisations, and hospital-associated deaths, using a method that models daily incidence as a weighted sum of past incidence, as implemented in the R package EpiEstim. R was also estimated separately using public and private sector data.
resultsNationally, the maximum case-based R following the introduction of lockdown measures was 1.55 (CI: 1.43-1.66), 1.56 (CI: 1.47-1.64), 1.46 (CI: 1.38-1.53) and 3.33 (CI: 2.84-3.97) during the first (Wuhan-Hu), second (Beta), third (Delta), and fourth (Omicron) waves, respectively. Estimates based on the three data sources (cases, hospitalisations, deaths) were generally similar during the first three waves, but higher during the fourth wave for case-based estimates. Public and private sector R estimates were generally similar except during the initial lockdowns and in case-based estimates during the fourth wave.
conclusionAgreement between R estimates using different data sources during the first three waves suggests that data from any of these sources could be used in the early stages of a future pandemic. The high R estimates for Omicron relative to earlier waves are interesting given a high level of exposure pre-Omicron. The agreement between public and private sector R estimates highlights that clients of the public and private sectors did not experience two separate epidemics, except perhaps to a limited extent during the strictest lockdowns in the first wave.
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.