ArticlePNAS nexus2024
Reporting delays: A widely neglected impact factor in COVID-19 forecasts.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2024. 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.
- Recommendations for the analysis of leading indicators in epidemic surveillance.PLOS digital health · 2026Review
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
Epidemic forecasts are only as good as the accuracy of epidemic measurements. Is epidemic data, particularly COVID-19 epidemic data, clean, and devoid of noise? The complexity and variability inherent in data collection and reporting suggest otherwise. While we cannot evaluate the integrity of the COVID-19 epidemic data in a holistic fashion, we can assess the data for the presence of reporting delays. In our work, through the analysis of the first COVID-19 wave, we find substantial reporting delays in the published epidemic data. Motivated by the desire to enhance epidemic forecasts, we develop a statistical framework to detect, uncover, and remove reporting delays in the infectious, recovered, and deceased epidemic time series. Using our framework, we expose and analyze reporting delays in eight regions significantly affected by the first COVID-19 wave. Further, we demonstrate that removing reporting delays from epidemic data by using our statistical framework may decrease the error in epidemic forecasts. While our statistical framework can be used in combination with any epidemic forecast method that intakes infectious, recovered, and deceased data, to make a basic assessment, we employed the classical SIRD epidemic model. Our results indicate that the removal of reporting delays from the epidemic data may decrease the forecast error by up to 50%. We anticipate that our framework will be indispensable in the analysis of novel COVID-19 strains and other existing or novel infectious diseases.
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.