were analyzed and discussed to better understand the epidemiology, causes, clinical diagnosis, prevention and control of this virus. The research domains, dates of publication, journal language, authors' affiliations, and methodological characteristics were included in the analysis. All the findings and statements in this review regarding the outbreak are based on published information as listed in the references. Results: Most of the publications were written using the English language (89.2%). The largest proportion of published articles were related to causes (38.5%) and a majority (67.7%) were published by Chinese scholars. Research articles initially focused on causes, but over time there was an increase of the articles related to prevention and control. Studies thus far have shown that the virus' origination is in connection to a seafood market in Wuhan, but specific animal associations have not been confirmed. Reported symptoms include fever, cough, fatigue, pneumonia, headache, diarrhea, hemoptysis, and dyspnea. Preventive measures such as masks, hand hygiene practices, avoidance of public contact, case detection, contact tracing, and quarantines have been discussed as ways to reduce transmission. To date, no specific antiviral treatment has proven effective; hence, infected people primarily rely on symptomatic treatment and supportive care. (Continued on next page)Conclusions: There has been a rapid surge in research in response to the outbreak of COVID-19. During this early period, published research primarily explored the epidemiology, causes, clinical manifestation and diagnosis, as well as prevention and control of the novel coronavirus. Although these studies are relevant to control the current public emergency, more high-quality research is needed to provide valid and reliable ways to manage this kind of public health emergency in both the short-and long-term.

Instrumental variable (IV) methods are becoming increasingly popular as they seem to offer the only viable way to overcome the problem of unobserved confounding in observational studies. However, some attention has to be paid to the details, as not all such methods target the same causal parameters and some rely on more restrictive parametric assumptions than others. We therefore discuss and contrast the most common IV approaches with relevance to typical applications in observational epidemiology. Further, we illustrate and compare the asymptotic bias of these IV estimators when underlying assumptions are violated in a numerical study. One of our conclusions is that all IV methods encounter problems in the presence of effect modification by unobserved confounders. Since this can never be ruled out for sure, we recommend that practical applications of IV estimators be accompanied routinely by a sensitivity analysis.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/09-STS316 the Statistical Science (http://www.imstat.org/sts/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

In this paper, the authors describe different instrumental variable (IV) estimators of causal risk ratios and odds ratios with particular attention to methods that can handle continuously measured exposures. The authors present this discussion in the context of a Mendelian randomization analysis of the effect of body mass index (BMI; weight (kg)/height (m)(2)) on the risk of asthma at age 7 years (Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, 1991-1992). The authors show that the multiplicative structural mean model (MSMM) and the multiplicative generalized method of moments (MGMM) estimator produce identical estimates of the causal risk ratio. In the example, MSMM and MGMM estimates suggested an inverse relation between BMI and asthma but other IV estimates suggested a positive relation, although all estimates had wide confidence intervals. An interaction between the associations of BMI and fat mass and obesity-associated (FTO) genotype with asthma explained the different directions of the different estimates, and a simulation study supported the observation that MSMM/MGMM estimators are negatively correlated with the other estimators when such an interaction is present. The authors conclude that point estimates from various IV methods can differ in practical applications. Based on the theoretical properties of the estimators, structural mean models make weaker assumptions than other IV estimators and can therefore be expected to be consistent in a wider range of situations.

No abstract

Background: The 2019-nCoV has been identified as the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China beginning in December 2019. This epidemic had spread to 19 countries with 11791 confirmed cases, including 213 deaths, as of January 31, 2020. The World Health Organization declared it as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.Methods: A scoping review of 65 research articles published until January 31, 2020 were analyzed and discussed for a better understanding of the epidemiology, causes, clinical diagnosis, prevention and control of this virus. The research domains, publishing dates, journal language, and authors’ affiliations, as well as methodological characteristics were analyzed. All findings and statements that are mentioned regarding the outbreak in this review are based on published information as listed in the references.Results: Most of the publications were in English language (89.23%). The largest proportion of articles were related to causes (38.46%) and majority (67.69%), and were published by Chinese scholars. Research articles initially focused on causes while there was an increase of the articles related to prevention and control over time. Studies thus far have shown origination in connection to a seafood market in Wuhan, but specific animal association has not been confirmed. The reported symptoms include fever, cough, fatigue, pneumonia, headache, diarrhea, hemoptysis, and dyspnea. Preventive measures such as masks, hand hygiene practices, avoidance of public contact, case detection, contact tracing, and quarantines are being discussed for reducing the transmission. To date, no specific antiviral treatment is proven effective, hence, infected people primarily rely on symptomatic treatment and supportive care. Conclusions: There has been a rapid surge in research in response to the outbreak of 2019-nCoV. During this early period, published research primarily explored the epidemiology, causes, clinical manifestation and diagnosis, as well as prevention and control of the novel coronavirus. Although these studies had relevance to the control of a public emergency, more high-quality research need to be conducted to provide valid and reliable ways to manage this kind of public health emergency in both short-and long-terms.