Abstract
During the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, several epidemiological measures, such as cumulative case-counts, incidence rates, effective reproduction numbers and doubling times, have been used to inform the general public and to justify interventions such as lockdown.
During the course of the epidemic, it has been very likely that not all infectious people have been identified, which lead to incomplete case-detection. Apart from asymptomatic infections, possible reasons for incomplete case-detection are availability of test kits and changes in test policies during the course of the epidemic. So far, it has not been examined how biased the reported epidemiological measures are in the presence of incomplete case detection.
In this work, we assess the four frequently used measures with respect to incomplete case-detection: 1) cumulative case-count, 2) incidence rate, 3) effective reproduction number and 4) doubling time. We apply an age-structured SIR model to simulate a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak followed by a lockdown in a hypothetical population. Different scenarios about temporal variations in case-detection are applied to the four measures during outbreak and lockdown. The biases resulting from incomplete case-detection on the four measures are compared. It turns out that the most frequently used epidemiological measure, the cumulative case count is most prone to bias in all of our settings. The effective reproduction number is the least biased measure.
With a view to future reporting about this or other epidemics, we recommend to use of the effective reproduction number for informing the general public and policy makers.
Competing Interest Statement
TK reports outside the submitted work to have received honoraria from Total, Newsenslab, Lilly, and The BMJ.
Funding Statement
None of the authors received any funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All data for this manuscript is publicly available. All sources have been cited properly.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
This work is based on publicly available data. All data sources have been cited properly. The source file as well as the associated technical appendix is uploaded as supplementary material.
