Emilio Gianicolo1, Nicola Riccetti, Maria Blettner, André Karch. 1. Institute for Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics (IMBEI), Mainz University Medical Center; Institute for Clinical Physiology, National Research Center, Lecce, Italy; Institute for Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Münster.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The various epidemiological indicators used to communicate the impact of COVID-19 have different strengths and limitations. METHODS: We conducted a selective literature review to identify the indicators used and to derive appropriate definitions. We calculated crude and age-adjusted indicators for selected countries. RESULTS: The proportion of deaths (case fatality proportion [CFP]; number of deaths/ total number of cases) is commonly used to estimate the severity of a disease. If the CFP is used for purposes of comparison, the existence of heterogeneity in the detection and registration of cases and deaths has to be taken into account. In the early phase of an epidemic, when case numbers rise rapidly, the CFP suffers from bias. For these reasons, variants have been proposed: the "confirmed CFP" (number of deaths/total number of confirmed cases), and the "delay-adjusted CFP," which considers the delay between infection with the disease and death from the disease. The indicator mortality (number of deaths/total population) has at first sight the advantage of being based on a defined denominator, the total population. During the outbreak of a disease, however, the cumulative deaths rise while the total population remains stable. The phase of the epidemic therefore has to be considered when using this indicator. In this context, R0 and R(t) are important indicators. R0 estimates the maximum rate of spread of a disease in a population, while R(t) describes the dynamics of the epidemic at a given time. Age-adjusted analysis of the CFP shows that the differences between countries decrease but do not dis - appear completely. If the test strategies depend on age or symptom severity, however, the bias cannot be entirely eliminated. CONCLUSION: Various indicators of the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic at population level are used in daily communication. Considering the relevance of the pandemic and the importance of relevant communications, however, the strengths and the limitations of each parameter must be considered carefully.
BACKGROUND: The various epidemiological indicators used to communicate the impact of COVID-19 have different strengths and limitations. METHODS: We conducted a selective literature review to identify the indicators used and to derive appropriate definitions. We calculated crude and age-adjusted indicators for selected countries. RESULTS: The proportion of deaths (case fatality proportion [CFP]; number of deaths/ total number of cases) is commonly used to estimate the severity of a disease. If the CFP is used for purposes of comparison, the existence of heterogeneity in the detection and registration of cases and deaths has to be taken into account. In the early phase of an epidemic, when case numbers rise rapidly, the CFP suffers from bias. For these reasons, variants have been proposed: the "confirmed CFP" (number of deaths/total number of confirmed cases), and the "delay-adjusted CFP," which considers the delay between infection with the disease and death from the disease. The indicator mortality (number of deaths/total population) has at first sight the advantage of being based on a defined denominator, the total population. During the outbreak of a disease, however, the cumulative deaths rise while the total population remains stable. The phase of the epidemic therefore has to be considered when using this indicator. In this context, R0 and R(t) are important indicators. R0 estimates the maximum rate of spread of a disease in a population, while R(t) describes the dynamics of the epidemic at a given time. Age-adjusted analysis of the CFP shows that the differences between countries decrease but do not dis - appear completely. If the test strategies depend on age or symptom severity, however, the bias cannot be entirely eliminated. CONCLUSION: Various indicators of the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic at population level are used in daily communication. Considering the relevance of the pandemic and the importance of relevant communications, however, the strengths and the limitations of each parameter must be considered carefully.
Authors: Marc Lipsitch; Christl A Donnelly; Christophe Fraser; Isobel M Blake; Anne Cori; Ilaria Dorigatti; Neil M Ferguson; Tini Garske; Harriet L Mills; Steven Riley; Maria D Van Kerkhove; Miguel A Hernán Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2015-07-16
Authors: Katherine E Atkins; Natasha S Wenzel; Martial Ndeffo-Mbah; Frederick L Altice; Jeffrey P Townsend; Alison P Galvani Journal: BMJ Date: 2015-03-16
Authors: Chad R Wells; Pratha Sah; Seyed M Moghadas; Abhishek Pandey; Affan Shoukat; Yaning Wang; Zheng Wang; Lauren A Meyers; Burton H Singer; Alison P Galvani Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Javier M Moguerza; Salvador Perelló Oliver; Isaac Martín de Diego; Víctor Aceña; Carmen Lancho; Marina Cuesta; César González Fernández Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 3.390