Comparison of the Effective Reproduction Number (Rt) Estimation Methods of COVID-19 Using Simulation Data Based on Available Data from Iran, USA, UK, India, and Brazil.

IF 1.4 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Ali Karamoozian, Abbas Bahrampour
{"title":"Comparison of the Effective Reproduction Number (Rt) Estimation Methods of COVID-19 Using Simulation Data Based on Available Data from Iran, USA, UK, India, and Brazil.","authors":"Ali Karamoozian,&nbsp;Abbas Bahrampour","doi":"10.34172/jrhs.2022.94","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accurate determination of the effective reproduction number (Rt) is a very important strategy in the epidemiology of contagious diseases, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study compares different methods of estimating the Rt of susceptible population to identify the most accurate method for estimating Rt.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A secondary study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The value of Rt was estimated using attack rate (AR), exponential growth (EG), maximum likelihood (ML), time-dependent (TD), and sequential Bayesian (SB) methods, for Iran, the United States, the United Kingdom, India, and Brazil from June to October 2021. In order to accurately compare these methods, a simulation study was designed using forty scenarios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The lowest mean square error (MSE) was observed for TD and ML methods, with 15 and 12 cases, respectively. Therefore, considering the estimated values of Rt based on the TD method, it was found that Rt values in the United Kingdom (1.33; 95% CI: 1.14-1.52) and the United States (1.25; 95% CI: 1.12-1.38) substantially have been more than those in other countries, such as Iran (1.07; 95% CI: 0.95-1.19), India (0.99; 95% CI: 0.89-1.08), and Brazil (0.98; 95% CI: 0.84-1.14) from June to October 2021.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The important result of this study is that TD and ML methods lead to a more accurate estimation of Rt of population than other methods. Therefore, in order to monitor and determine the epidemic situation and have a more accurate prediction of the incidence rate, as well as control COVID-19 and similar diseases, the use of these two methods is suggested to more accurately estimate Rt.</p>","PeriodicalId":17164,"journal":{"name":"Journal of research in health sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10422149/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of research in health sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/jrhs.2022.94","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Accurate determination of the effective reproduction number (Rt) is a very important strategy in the epidemiology of contagious diseases, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study compares different methods of estimating the Rt of susceptible population to identify the most accurate method for estimating Rt.

Study design: A secondary study.

Methods: The value of Rt was estimated using attack rate (AR), exponential growth (EG), maximum likelihood (ML), time-dependent (TD), and sequential Bayesian (SB) methods, for Iran, the United States, the United Kingdom, India, and Brazil from June to October 2021. In order to accurately compare these methods, a simulation study was designed using forty scenarios.

Results: The lowest mean square error (MSE) was observed for TD and ML methods, with 15 and 12 cases, respectively. Therefore, considering the estimated values of Rt based on the TD method, it was found that Rt values in the United Kingdom (1.33; 95% CI: 1.14-1.52) and the United States (1.25; 95% CI: 1.12-1.38) substantially have been more than those in other countries, such as Iran (1.07; 95% CI: 0.95-1.19), India (0.99; 95% CI: 0.89-1.08), and Brazil (0.98; 95% CI: 0.84-1.14) from June to October 2021.

Conclusion: The important result of this study is that TD and ML methods lead to a more accurate estimation of Rt of population than other methods. Therefore, in order to monitor and determine the epidemic situation and have a more accurate prediction of the incidence rate, as well as control COVID-19 and similar diseases, the use of these two methods is suggested to more accurately estimate Rt.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

基于伊朗、美国、英国、印度和巴西的模拟数据的COVID-19有效复制数(Rt)估算方法比较
背景:准确测定有效繁殖数(Rt)是包括2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)在内的传染病流行病学研究中非常重要的策略。本研究比较了估计易感人群Rt的不同方法,以确定最准确的Rt估计方法。研究设计:二级研究。方法:使用攻击率(AR)、指数增长(EG)、最大似然(ML)、时间相关(TD)和顺序贝叶斯(SB)方法对伊朗、美国、英国、印度和巴西2021年6月至10月的Rt值进行估计。为了准确地比较这些方法,设计了一个包含40个场景的模拟研究。结果:TD法和ML法均方误差最小,分别为15例和12例。因此,考虑基于TD方法的Rt估计值,发现英国的Rt值为(1.33;95% CI: 1.14-1.52)和美国(1.25;95% CI: 1.12-1.38)大大高于其他国家,如伊朗(1.07;95% CI: 0.95-1.19),印度(0.99;95% CI: 0.89-1.08),巴西(0.98;95% CI: 0.84-1.14),从2021年6月到10月。结论:本研究的重要结果是,TD和ML方法比其他方法更准确地估计了人群的Rt。因此,为了监测和确定疫情,更准确地预测发病率,控制COVID-19及类似疾病,建议使用这两种方法更准确地估计Rt。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of research in health sciences
Journal of research in health sciences PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
13.30%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: The Journal of Research in Health Sciences (JRHS) is the official journal of the School of Public Health; Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, which is published quarterly. Since 2017, JRHS is published electronically. JRHS is a peer-reviewed, scientific publication which is produced quarterly and is a multidisciplinary journal in the field of public health, publishing contributions from Epidemiology, Biostatistics, Public Health, Occupational Health, Environmental Health, Health Education, and Preventive and Social Medicine. We do not publish clinical trials, nursing studies, animal studies, qualitative studies, nutritional studies, health insurance, and hospital management. In addition, we do not publish the results of laboratory and chemical studies in the field of ergonomics, occupational health, and environmental health
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信