ArticleInfectious Disease Modelling2024
Estimating geographic variation of infection fatality ratios during epidemics.
Article in Infectious Disease Modelling, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
15 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: We aim to estimate geographic variability in total numbers of infections and infection fatality ratios (IFR; the number of deaths caused by an infection per 1,000 infected people) when the availability and quality of data on disease burden are limited during an epidemic. Methods: We develop a noncentral hypergeometric framework that accounts for differential probabilities of positive tests and reflects the fact that symptomatic people are more likely to seek testing. We demonstrate the robustness, accuracy, and precision of this framework, and apply it to the United States (U.S.) COVID-19 pandemic to estimate county-level SARS-CoV-2 IFRs. Results: The estimators for the numbers of infections and IFRs showed high accuracy and precision; for instance, when applied to simulated validation data sets, across counties, Pearson correlation coefficients between estimator means and true values were 0.996 and 0.928, respectively, and they showed strong robustness to model misspecification. Applying the county-level estimators to the real, unsimulated COVID-19 data spanning April 1, 2020 to September 30, 2020 from across the U.S., we found that IFRs varied from 0 to 44.69, with a standard deviation of 3.55 and a median of 2.14. Conclusions: The proposed estimation framework can be used to identify geographic variation in IFRs across settings.
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.