Response to Letters Re: "Assessing mandatory stay‐ at‐ home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID‐ 19" release_n4qe7gq7czcjrglh7eqgn2lrki

by Eran Bendavid, Christopher Oh, Jay Bhattacharya, John Ioannidis

Published in European Journal of Clinical Investigation by Wiley.

2021   Volume 51, Issue 6, e13553


We are pleased to see the active discussion around our study on the relationship between mandatory stay- at- home and business closures and COVID-19 spread.1 In this response, we address issues raised in three letters.2-4 The claim that the study had sample size of n=10 countries is incorrect.2 Each of the 16 regression models represented in Figure 4 included, on average, 1,362 data points (range 771-3,493) on 52 subnational units (range 27-129). Each panel regression is, in effect, a "mini-meta-analysis": the effect size is evaluated within each subnational unit, and the overall effect size is estimated from a pooling of these "within" effects. So while we aggregated the results to 10 countries, the sample size is not n=10.
In text/plain format

Archived Files and Locations

application/pdf  93.2 kB
file_7dmpnsweqrhgdch36s4p6xpuiq (publisher) (webarchive)
Read Archived PDF
Preserved and Accessible
Type  article-journal
Stage   published
Date   2021-03-23
Language   en ?
DOI  10.1111/eci.13553
PubMed  33756017
PMC  PMC8250311
Journal Metadata
Not in DOAJ
In Keepers Registry
ISSN-L:  0014-2972
Work Entity
access all versions, variants, and formats of this works (eg, pre-prints)
Catalog Record
Revision: cd6a5b99-a6dd-4ee0-a46e-1ddb75934a7e