ArticlePloS one2024
Changing COVID-19 cases and deaths detection in Florida.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Epidemic data are often difficult to interpret due to inconsistent detection and reporting. As these data are critically relied upon to inform policy and epidemic projections, understanding reporting trends is similarly important. Early reporting of the COVID-19 pandemic in particular is complicated, due to changing diagnostic and testing protocols. An internal audit by the State of Florida, USA found numerous specific examples of irregularities in COVID-19 case and death reports. Using case, hospitalization, and death data from the the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Florida, we present approaches that can be used to identify the timing, direction, and magnitude of some reporting changes. Specifically, by establishing a baseline of detection probabilities from the first (spring) wave, we show that transmission trends among all age groups were similar, with the exception of the second summer wave, when younger people became infected earlier than seniors, by approximately 2 weeks. We also found a substantial drop in case-fatality risk (CFR) among all age groups over the three waves during the first year of the pandemic, with the most drastic changes seen in the 0 to 39 age group. The CFR trends provide useful insights into infection detection that would not be possible by relying on the number of tests alone. During the third wave, for which we have reliable hospitalization data, the CFR was remarkably stable across all age groups. In contrast, the hospitalization-to-case ratio varied inversely with cases while the death-to-hospitalization ratio varied proportionally. Although specific trends are likely to vary between locales, the approaches we present here offer a generic way to understand the substantial changes that occurred in the relationships among the key epidemic indicators.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.