It doesn't matter how you come across something, that's not the problem: if it doesn't fit your inclusion criteria, then it has to be excluded. (Or you revise your inclusion criteria & re-do all the methods needed to accommodate & start searching all over again.)
? In terms of double-counting, one study estimated excess mortality using daily deaths for Lombardia and Bergamo over 5 years. The other used confirmed cases and deaths due to COVID-19 between Feb and March 2020 for the entire country
-
-
And interestingly, the two methods came to very different estimates of IFR - 0.95% vs 1.6%. I'm not sure I can see how including both would be double-counting, even if some of the data used to develop models in both may have overlapped?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Gideon, please have this discussion of whether pooling modeling estimates & then pooling them with primary studies is methodologically valid with an expert. Or at least provide references to support doing it. I'm out.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
