Skip to main content
  • Letter to the Editor Response
  • Open access
  • Published:

Socio-economic factors do also matter: comments on the article “can climatic factors explain the differences in COVID-19 incidence and severity across the SPANISH regions?: an ecological study”

The Original Article was published on 18 February 2021


Phosri et al., commented on our previous study about the influence of climate variables at the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Spain. They showed the impact of the association of gross domestic product (GDP) with the cumulative COVID-19 incidence per 105 inhabitants in our country and the rise of several methodologic issues. Here we discussed the main advantages and disadvantages of ecological studies and we advocate to test the hypothesis created in this type of studies using individual-level research designs.

Peer Review reports

In response to the letter submitted by Phosri et al., concerning our paper [1], we agree with the authors that socioeconomic factors may influence the distribution of COVID-19 incidence. However, they surprisingly propose as a proof, the association of gross domestic product (GDP) with the cumulative COVID-19 incidence per 105 inhabitants which, due to the lack of adjustment by any confounder factor, may be biased. This lack of controlling for possible confounders is the main criticism that they attribute to our study, that is, they do not apply any of the statistical methods which they propose.

Focusing on the variable “ultraviolet radiation” (UVR), there could be multiple possible confounder factors, some of them probably unidentified, and some others difficult to quantify. Among them, there are other meteorological variables, socio-economic factors, percentage of older adults, population density, presence of mass transit systems, incidence in neighboring populations, prevalence of highly transmissible variants, cultural and religious variables, etc. However, attempts to control for these variables in ecological studies do not prevent the persistence of the bias inherent to this type of epidemiological design [2,3,4].

Controlling confounders in ecological studies is more problematic than in individual-level studies. According to Harold Morgenstern “even when all variables are measured accurately for all groups, adjusting for external risk factors may not reduce the ecological bias produced by these risk factors. In fact, it is possible that such ecological adjustment increases the bias” [2]. Recently, Páez et al. [5] have suggested that an ecological study provides evidence that necessarily has to be verified with other research designs. A careful reading of this study [5] might also clarify some of the questions rised by Phosri et al.

In addition to the well-known ecological fallacy (or aggregation bias), ecological studies have other limitations, including the lack of adequate data, temporal ambiguity, collinearity, migration across groups, etc. For these reasons, ecological studies contribute to generate hypotheses but not to confirm them. In this sense, the hypotheses arising from ecological studies have to be evaluated in order to verify their biological plausibility, and those that have a sufficiently solid basis according to current knowledge should be contrasted using individual-level designs, such as cohort studies or clinical trials. In this line, in a case-control study, we have recently provided some evidence on the involvement of serum vitamin D levels (influenced by UVR exposure) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients [6]. Another Spanish group has carried out a pilot clinical trial with positive results of the efficacy of vitamin D supplements in reducing ICU admissions and mortality related to COVID-19 in hospitalized patients [7].

Finally, it should be pointed out that the statement made by Phrosri et al. “Therefore, authors could not conclude that a whether variable, UVR predominantly influences COVID-19 incidence and severity unless other significant variables are included”, does not reflect our interpretation of the results, as was clearly expressed in our original manuscript: “Therefore, the design used serves to propose hypotheses that must be corroborated with other epidemiological designs”.

Thus, to gain more knowledge about the causes explaining the greater transmissibility and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection, it is necessary to use individual-level research designs, mainly randomized clinical trials, rather than trying to control for possible confounders in ecological studies.

Availability of data and materials

National official sources (Ministry of Health; and Spanish Meteorological Agency (upon request:,


  1. Cacho PM, Hernández JL, López-Hoyos M, Martínez-Taboada VM. Can climatic factors explain the differences in COVID-19 incidence and severity across the Spanish regions?: an ecological study. Environ Health. 2020;19:106.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rothman K, Greenland S, Tl L. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. p. 511–31.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Greenland S, Morgenstern H. Ecological bias, confounding, and effect modification. Int J Epidemiol. 1989;18:269–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Greenland S, Robins J. Invited commentary: ecologic studies--biases, misconceptions, and counterexamples. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;139:747–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Paez A, Lopez FA, Menezes T, Cavalcanti R, Pitta MGDR. A Spatio-Temporal Analysis of the Environmental Correlates of COVID-19 Incidence in Spain. Geogr Anal. 2020.,

  6. Hernández JL, Nan D, Fernandez-Ayala M, García-Unzueta M, Hernández-Hernández MA, López-Hoyos M, et al. Vitamin D Status in Hospitalized Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020:dgaa733.

  7. Entrenas Castillo M, Entrenas Costa LM, Vaquero Barrios JM, Alcalá Díaz JF, López Miranda J, Bouillon R, Quesada Gomez JM. Effect of calcifediol treatment and best available therapy versus best available therapy on intensive care unit admission and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a pilot randomized clinical study. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2020;203:105751.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


Not applicable.


Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



PM and VMT designed the research and collected data; PM analyzed the data; PM, VMT and JLH wrote the manuscript; MLH critically revised the manuscript. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final paper. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Víctor M. Martínez-Taboada.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cacho, P.M., Hernández, J.L., López-Hoyos, M. et al. Socio-economic factors do also matter: comments on the article “can climatic factors explain the differences in COVID-19 incidence and severity across the SPANISH regions?: an ecological study”. Environ Health 20, 18 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: