Cargando…
A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates
An important unknown during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been the infection fatality rate (IFR). This differs from the case fatality rate (CFR) as an estimate of the number of deaths and as a proportion of the total number of cases, including those who are mild and asymptomat...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7524446/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33007452 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.1464 |
_version_ | 1783588552731262976 |
---|---|
author | Meyerowitz-Katz, Gideon Merone, Lea |
author_facet | Meyerowitz-Katz, Gideon Merone, Lea |
author_sort | Meyerowitz-Katz, Gideon |
collection | PubMed |
description | An important unknown during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been the infection fatality rate (IFR). This differs from the case fatality rate (CFR) as an estimate of the number of deaths and as a proportion of the total number of cases, including those who are mild and asymptomatic. While the CFR is extremely valuable for experts, IFR is increasingly being called for by policy makers and the lay public as an estimate of the overall mortality from COVID-19. METHODS: Pubmed, Medline, SSRN, and Medrxiv were searched using a set of terms and Boolean operators on 25/04/2020 and re-searched on 14/05/2020, 21/05/2020 and 16/06/2020. Articles were screened for inclusion by both authors. Meta-analysis was performed in Stata 15.1 by using the metan command, based on IFR and confidence intervals extracted from each study. Google/Google Scholar was used to assess the grey literature relating to government reports. RESULTS: After exclusions, there were 24 estimates of IFR included in the final meta-analysis, from a wide range of countries, published between February and June 2020. The meta-analysis demonstrated a point estimate of IFR of 0.68% (0.53%–0.82%) with high heterogeneity (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of published evidence on COVID-19 until July 2020, the IFR of the disease across populations is 0.68% (0.53%–0.82%). However, due to very high heterogeneity in the meta-analysis, it is difficult to know if this represents a completely unbiased point estimate. It is likely that, due to age and perhaps underlying comorbidities in the population, different places will experience different IFRs due to the disease. Given issues with mortality recording, it is also likely that this represents an underestimate of the true IFR figure. More research looking at age-stratified IFR is urgently needed to inform policymaking on this front. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7524446 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75244462020-09-30 A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates Meyerowitz-Katz, Gideon Merone, Lea Int J Infect Dis Article An important unknown during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been the infection fatality rate (IFR). This differs from the case fatality rate (CFR) as an estimate of the number of deaths and as a proportion of the total number of cases, including those who are mild and asymptomatic. While the CFR is extremely valuable for experts, IFR is increasingly being called for by policy makers and the lay public as an estimate of the overall mortality from COVID-19. METHODS: Pubmed, Medline, SSRN, and Medrxiv were searched using a set of terms and Boolean operators on 25/04/2020 and re-searched on 14/05/2020, 21/05/2020 and 16/06/2020. Articles were screened for inclusion by both authors. Meta-analysis was performed in Stata 15.1 by using the metan command, based on IFR and confidence intervals extracted from each study. Google/Google Scholar was used to assess the grey literature relating to government reports. RESULTS: After exclusions, there were 24 estimates of IFR included in the final meta-analysis, from a wide range of countries, published between February and June 2020. The meta-analysis demonstrated a point estimate of IFR of 0.68% (0.53%–0.82%) with high heterogeneity (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of published evidence on COVID-19 until July 2020, the IFR of the disease across populations is 0.68% (0.53%–0.82%). However, due to very high heterogeneity in the meta-analysis, it is difficult to know if this represents a completely unbiased point estimate. It is likely that, due to age and perhaps underlying comorbidities in the population, different places will experience different IFRs due to the disease. Given issues with mortality recording, it is also likely that this represents an underestimate of the true IFR figure. More research looking at age-stratified IFR is urgently needed to inform policymaking on this front. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases. 2020-12 2020-09-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7524446/ /pubmed/33007452 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.1464 Text en © 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. |
spellingShingle | Article Meyerowitz-Katz, Gideon Merone, Lea A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates |
title | A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates |
title_full | A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates |
title_fullStr | A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates |
title_full_unstemmed | A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates |
title_short | A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates |
title_sort | systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on covid-19 infection fatality rates |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7524446/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33007452 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.1464 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT meyerowitzkatzgideon asystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofpublishedresearchdataoncovid19infectionfatalityrates AT meronelea asystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofpublishedresearchdataoncovid19infectionfatalityrates AT meyerowitzkatzgideon systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofpublishedresearchdataoncovid19infectionfatalityrates AT meronelea systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofpublishedresearchdataoncovid19infectionfatalityrates |