An Examination of COVID-19 Mitigation Efficiency among 23 Countries

  1. Emily Chia-Yu Su
  2. Cheng-Hsing Hsiao
  3. Yi-Tui Chen
  4. Shih-Heng Yu

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The purpose of this paper was to compare the relative efficiency of COVID-19 transmission mitigation among 23 selected countries, including 19 countries in the G20, two heavily infected countries (Iran and Spain), and two highly populous countries (Pakistan and Nigeria). The mitigation efficiency for each country was evaluated at each stage by using data envelopment analysis (DEA) tools and changes in mitigation efficiency were analyzed across stages. Pearson correlation tests were conducted between each change to examine the impact of efficiency ranks in the previous stage on subsequent stages. An indicator was developed to judge epidemic stability and was applied to practical cases involving lifting travel restrictions and restarting the economy in some countries. The results showed that Korea and Australia performed with the highest efficiency in preventing the diffusion of COVID-19 for the whole period covering 105 days since the first confirmed case, while the USA ranked at the bottom. China, Japan, Korea, and Australia were judged to have recovered from the attack of COVID-19 due to higher epidemic stability.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/healthcare9060755
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.23.20180554: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.08.23.20180554v1 on medRxiv