ArticleBMC infectious diseases2024
Two biases in incubation time estimation related to exposure.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Consolidating Estimates of the Incubation Period for Omicron Subvariants From the Literature and Their Comparison to the Estimate From Taiwan: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, September 2024.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical progression parameters associated with SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus infections in a large US integrated healthcare population.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- The latency time of SARS-CoV- 2 Delta variant in infection- and vaccine-naive individuals from Vietnam.BMC infectious diseases · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEstimation of the SARS-CoV-2 incubation time distribution is hampered by incomplete data about infection. We discuss two biases that may result from incorrect handling of such data. Notified cases may recall recent exposures more precisely (differential recall). This creates bias if the analysis is restricted to observations with well-defined exposures, as longer incubation times are more likely to be excluded. Another bias occurred in the initial estimates based on data concerning travellers from Wuhan. Only individuals who developed symptoms after their departure were included, leading to under-representation of cases with shorter incubation times (left truncation). This issue was not addressed in the analyses performed in the literature.
methodsWe performed simulations and provide a literature review to investigate the amount of bias in estimated percentiles of the SARS-CoV-2 incubation time distribution.
resultsDepending on the rate of differential recall, restricting the analysis to a subset of narrow exposure windows resulted in underestimation in the median and even more in the 95th percentile. Failing to account for left truncation led to an overestimation of multiple days in both the median and the 95th percentile.
conclusionWe examined two overlooked sources of bias concerning exposure information that the researcher engaged in incubation time estimation needs to be aware of.
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.