ArticlePloS one2023
Monitoring the reproductive number of COVID-19 in France: Comparative estimates from three datasets.
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.
- Community and Hospital-Based Laboratory Surveillance for Influenza, Respiratory Syncytial Virus, and SARS-CoV-2 During the 2023-2024 Season, Lyon, France.Journal of medical virology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effective reproduction number (Rt) quantifies the average number of secondary cases caused by one person with an infectious disease. Near-real-time monitoring of Rt during an outbreak is a major indicator used to monitor changes in disease transmission and assess the effectiveness of interventions. The estimation of Rt usually requires the identification of infected cases in the population, which can prove challenging with the available data, especially when asymptomatic people or with mild symptoms are not usually screened. The purpose of this study was to perform sensitivity analysis of Rt estimates for COVID-19 surveillance in France based on three data sources with different sensitivities and specificities for identifying infected cases.
methodsWe applied a statistical method developed by Cori et al. to estimate Rt using (1) confirmed cases identified from positive virological tests in the population, (2) suspected cases recorded by a national network of emergency departments, and (3) COVID-19 hospital admissions recorded by a national administrative system to manage hospital organization.
resultsRt estimates in France from May 27, 2020, to August 12, 2022, showed similar temporal trends regardless of the dataset. Estimates based on the daily number of confirmed cases provided an earlier signal than the two other sources, with an average lag of 3 and 6 days for estimates based on emergency department visits and hospital admissions, respectively.
conclusionThe COVID-19 experience confirmed that monitoring temporal changes in Rt was a key indicator to help the public health authorities control the outbreak in real time. However, gaining access to data on all infected people in the population in order to estimate Rt is not straightforward in practice. As this analysis has shown, the opportunity to use more readily available data to estimate Rt trends, provided that it is highly correlated with the spread of infection, provides a practical solution for monitoring the COVID-19 pandemic and indeed any other epidemic.
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.