ArticlePloS one2025
Estimating the trend of COVID-19 in Norway by combining multiple surveillance indicators.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recommendations for the analysis of leading indicators in epidemic surveillance.PLOS digital health · 2026Review
- Cardiorespiratory fitness and physical activity and risk of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 hospitalization: the HUNT study.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Estimating the trend of new infections was crucial for monitoring risk and for evaluating strategies and interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic revealed the utility of new data sources and highlighted challenges in interpreting surveillance indicators when changes in disease severity, testing practices or reporting occur. Our study aims to estimate the underlying trend in new COVID-19 infections by combining estimates of growth rates from all available surveillance indicators in Norway. We estimated growth rates by using a negative binomial regression method and aligned the growth rates in time to hospital admissions by maximising correlations. Using a meta-analysis framework, we calculated overall growth rates and reproduction numbers including assessments of the heterogeneity between indicators. We find that the estimated growth rates reached a maximum of 25% per day in March 2020, but afterwards they were between -10% and 10% per day. The correlations between the growth rates estimated from different indicators were between 0.5 and 1.0. Growth rates from indicators based on wastewater, panel and cohort data can give up to 14 days earlier signals of trends compared to hospital admissions, while indicators based on positive lab tests can give signals up to 7 days earlier. Combining estimates of growth rates from multiple surveillance indicators provides a useful description of the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway. This is a powerful technique for a holistic understanding of the trends of new COVID-19 infections and the technique can easily be adapted to new data sources and situations.
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.