4.7 Article

Estimating the Unreported Number of Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Cases in China in the First Half of January 2020: A Data-Driven Modelling Analysis of the Early Outbreak

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9020388

关键词

novel coronavirus; outbreak; modelling; underreporting; reproduction number; China

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61672013]
  2. Huaian Key Laboratory for Infectious Diseases Control and Prevention [HAP201704]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In December 2019, an outbreak of respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) emerged in Wuhan, China and has swiftly spread to other parts of China and a number of foreign countries. The 2019-nCoV cases might have been under-reported roughly from 1 to 15 January 2020, and thus we estimated the number of unreported cases and the basic reproduction number, R-0, of 2019-nCoV. Methods: We modelled the epidemic curve of 2019-nCoV cases, in mainland China from 1 December 2019 to 24 January 2020 through the exponential growth. The number of unreported cases was determined by the maximum likelihood estimation. We used the serial intervals (SI) of infection caused by two other well-known coronaviruses (CoV), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) CoVs, as approximations of the unknown SI for 2019-nCoV to estimate R-0. Results: We confirmed that the initial growth phase followed an exponential growth pattern. The under-reporting was likely to have resulted in 469 (95% CI: 403-540) unreported cases from 1 to 15 January 2020. The reporting rate after 17 January 2020 was likely to have increased 21-fold (95% CI: 18-25) in comparison to the situation from 1 to 17 January 2020 on average. We estimated the R-0 of 2019-nCoV at 2.56 (95% CI: 2.49-2.63). Conclusion: The under-reporting was likely to have occurred during the first half of January 2020 and should be considered in future investigation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据