Thx, I'll check it. To be clear: incl CEBM violates systematic reviewing methods for 2 reasons: (a) it's a blog post & your review's methods state articles, preprints & grey literature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_literature … Expand to blog posts, you now have to search for all blog posts to. 1/2
Well there were two studies that used Wuhan data, but they were very different datasets (deaths/cases and serology two months apart). Another study inferred IFR from Beijing, and another used exported cases from China as a whole
-
-
In terms of double-counting, the biggest worry was Lombardy data, because two studies used a similar dataset. However, they were two very different models so we thought on balance that it would be appropriate to include them both
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Quick glance at that table seems to be 3 with Wuhan & 2 with Diamond Princess (other than CEBM).
-
I suppose it does depend on what you mean by double-counting. The French study used DP and French data to build a model estimating IFR, rather than the DP modelling study from Imperial. And as I said, 2 using different data from Wuhan, one using evacuees to Japan from Wuhan
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
