Javascript must be enabled to continue!
A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection-fatality rates
View through CrossRef
Abstract
An important unknown during the 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 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 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 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 May, 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 the ‘true’ 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 policy-making on this front.
Key messages
–
COVID-19 infection-fatality rate (IFR) is an important statistic for policy about the disease
–
Published estimates vary, with a ‘true’ fatality rate hard to calculate
–
Systematically reviewing the literature and meta-analyzing the results shows an IFR of 0.68% (0.53-0.82%)
Title: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection-fatality rates
Description:
Abstract
An important unknown during the 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 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 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 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 May, 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 the ‘true’ 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 policy-making on this front.
Key messages
–
COVID-19 infection-fatality rate (IFR) is an important statistic for policy about the disease
–
Published estimates vary, with a ‘true’ fatality rate hard to calculate
–
Systematically reviewing the literature and meta-analyzing the results shows an IFR of 0.
68% (0.
53-0.
82%).
Related Results
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Abstract
The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) advises older adults to be as active as possible. Yet, despite the well documented benefits of physical activi...
Burden of the Beast
Burden of the Beast
Introduction
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, and its fluctuating waves of infections and the emergence of new variants, Indigenous populations in Australia and worldwide have re...
Macroeconomic and Social Precursors of Suicide Rates in the Philippines: A Quantitative Analysis (Preprint)
Macroeconomic and Social Precursors of Suicide Rates in the Philippines: A Quantitative Analysis (Preprint)
BACKGROUND
Suicide is a complex, serious and multifaceted public health issue that poses significant challenges to societies worldwide. In fact, it represen...
619. Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) Target Attainment Analyses to Support Epetraborole Dose Selection for the Treatment of Patients with Mycobacterium avium Complex (MAC) Lung Disease
619. Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) Target Attainment Analyses to Support Epetraborole Dose Selection for the Treatment of Patients with Mycobacterium avium Complex (MAC) Lung Disease
Abstract
Background
Epetraborole (EBO) is an orally available, bacterial leucyl transfer RNA synthetase inhibitor that concentra...
LB2306. Population Pharmacokinetic (PPK), Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic attainment (PTA), and Clinical Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) Analyses for Sulbactam-Durlobactam (SUL-DUR) to Support Dose Selection for the Treatment of Acinetobacter baum
LB2306. Population Pharmacokinetic (PPK), Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic attainment (PTA), and Clinical Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) Analyses for Sulbactam-Durlobactam (SUL-DUR) to Support Dose Selection for the Treatment of Acinetobacter baum
Abstract
Background
SUL-DUR is a β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination in development for the treatment of ABC infections, ...
The Hidden Problem of Cross-Reactivity: Challenges in HIV Testing During the COVID-19 Era: A Systematic Review
The Hidden Problem of Cross-Reactivity: Challenges in HIV Testing During the COVID-19 Era: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Introduction
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) surface glycoproteins, including shared epitope motifs, sho...
Small Cell Lung Cancer and Tarlatamab: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials
Small Cell Lung Cancer and Tarlatamab: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials
Abstract
Introduction
Tarlatamab is a Delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3) -directed bispecific T-cell engager recently approved for use in patients with advanced small cell lung cancer (SCL...

