DPH note about change from 7-day to 14-day metrics: As of 10/15/2020, this dataset is no longer being updated. Starting on 10/15/2020, these metrics will be calculated using a 14-day average rather than a 7-day average. The new dataset using 14-day averages can be accessed here: https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-case-rate-per-100-000-population-and-perc/hree-nys2

As you know, we are learning more about COVID-19 all the time, including the best ways to measure COVID-19 activity in our communities. CT DPH has decided to shift to 14-day rates because these are more stable, particularly at the town level, as compared to 7-day rates. In addition, since the school indicators were initially published by DPH last summer, CDC has recommended 14-day rates and other states (e.g., Massachusetts) have started to implement 14-day metrics for monitoring COVID transmission as well.

With respect to geography, we also have learned that many people are looking at the town-level data to inform decision making, despite emphasis on the county-level metrics in the published addenda. This is understandable as there has been variation within counties in COVID-19 activity (for example, rates that are higher in one town than in most other towns in the county).

This dataset includes a weekly count and weekly rate per 100,000 population for COVID-19 cases, a weekly count of COVID-19 PCR diagnostic tests, and a weekly percent positivity rate for tests among people living in community settings. Dates are based on date of specimen collection (cases and positivity).

A person is considered a new case only upon their first COVID-19 testing result because a case is defined as an instance or bout of illness. If they are tested again subsequently and are still positive, it still counts toward the test positivity metric but they are not considered another case.

These case and test counts do not include cases or tests among people residing in congregate settings, such as nursing homes, assisted living facilities, or correctional facilities.

These data are updated weekly; the previous week period for each dataset is the previous Sunday-Saturday, known as an MMWR week (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/document/MMWR_week_overview.pdf). The date listed is the date the dataset was last updated and corresponds to a reporting period of the previous MMWR week. For instance, the data for 8/20/2020 corresponds to a reporting period of 8/9/2020-8/15/2020.

Notes: 9/25/2020: Data for Mansfield and Middletown for the week of Sept 13-19 were unavailable at the time of reporting due to delays in lab reporting.

Reporting of Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, this dataset will no longer be updated.

This archived public use dataset has 11 data elements reflecting United States COVID-19 community levels for all available counties.

The COVID-19 community levels were developed using a combination of three metrics — new COVID-19 admissions per 100,000 population in the past 7 days, the percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients, and total new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days. The COVID-19 community level was determined by the higher of the new admissions and inpatient beds metrics, based on the current level of new cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days. New COVID-19 admissions and the percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied represent the current potential for strain on the health system. Data on new cases acts as an early warning indicator of potential increases in health system strain in the event of a COVID-19 surge.

Using these data, the COVID-19 community level was classified as low, medium, or high.

COVID-19 Community Levels were used to help communities and individuals make decisions based on their local context and their unique needs. Community vaccination coverage and other local information, like early alerts from surveillance, such as through wastewater or the number of emergency department visits for COVID-19, when available, can also inform decision making for health officials and individuals.

For the most accurate and up-to-date data for any county or state, visit the relevant health department website. COVID Data Tracker may display data that differ from state and local websites. This can be due to differences in how data were collected, how metrics were calculated, or the timing of web updates.

Archived Data Notes:

This dataset was renamed from "United States COVID-19 Community Levels by County as Originally Posted" to "United States COVID-19 Community Levels by County" on March 31, 2022.

March 31, 2022: Column name for county population was changed to “county_population”. No change was made to the data points previous released.

March 31, 2022: New column, “health_service_area_population”, was added to the dataset to denote the total population in the designated Health Service Area based on 2019 Census estimate.

March 31, 2022: FIPS codes for territories American Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and United States Virgin Islands were re-formatted to 5-digit numeric for records released on 3/3/2022 to be consistent with other records in the dataset.

March 31, 2022: Changes were made to the text fields in variables “county”, “state”, and “health_service_area” so the formats are consistent across releases.

March 31, 2022: The “%” sign was removed from the text field in column “covid_inpatient_bed_utilization”. No change was made to the data. As indicated in the column description, values in this column represent the percentage of staffed inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients (7-day average).

March 31, 2022: Data values for columns, “county_population”, “health_service_area_number”, and “health_service_area” were backfilled for records released on 2/24/2022. These columns were added since the week of 3/3/2022, thus the values were previously missing for records released the week prior.

April 7, 2022: Updates made to data released on 3/24/2022 for Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and United States Virgin Islands to correct a data mapping error.

April 21, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for counties in Nebraska for the week of April 21, 2022 have 3 counties identified in the high category and 37 in the medium category. CDC has been working with state officials to verify the data submitted, as other data systems are not providing alerts for substantial increases in disease transmission or severity in the state.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for McCracken County, KY for the week of May 5, 2022 have been updated to correct a data processing error. McCracken County, KY should have appeared in the low community level category during the week of May 5, 2022. This correction is reflected in this update.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for several Florida counties for the week of May 19th, 2022, have been corrected for a data processing error. Of note, Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach Counties should have appeared in the high CCL category, and Osceola County should have appeared in the medium CCL category. These corrections are reflected in this update.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Orange County, New York for the week of May 26, 2022 displayed an erroneous case rate of zero and a CCL category of low due to a data source error. This county should have appeared in the medium CCL category.

June 2, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Tolland County, CT for the week of May 26, 2022 have been updated to correct a data processing error. Tolland County, CT should have appeared in the medium community level category during the week of May 26, 2022. This correction is reflected in this update.

June 9, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Tolland County, CT for the week of May 26, 2022 have been updated to correct a misspelling. The medium community level category for Tolland County, CT on the week of May 26, 2022 was misspelled as “meduim” in the data set. This correction is reflected in this update.

June 9, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Mississippi counties for the week of June 9, 2022 should be interpreted with caution due to a reporting cadence change over the Memorial Day holiday that resulted in artificially inflated case rates in the state.

July 7, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Rock County, Minnesota for the week of July 7, 2022 displayed an artificially low case rate and CCL category due to a data source error. This county should have appeared in the high CCL category.

July 14, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Massachusetts counties for the week of July 14, 2022 should be interpreted with caution due to a reporting cadence change that resulted in lower than expected case rates and CCL categories in the state.

July 28, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for all Montana counties for the week of July 21, 2022 had case rates of 0 due to a reporting issue. The case rates have been corrected in this update.

July 28, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Alaska for all weeks prior to July 21, 2022 included non-resident cases. The case rates for the time series have been corrected in this update.

July 28, 2022: A laboratory in Nevada reported a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases. As a result, the 7-day case count and rate will be inflated in Clark County, NV for the week of July 28, 2022.

August 4, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data was updated on August 2, 2022 in error during performance testing. Data for the week of July 28, 2022 was changed during this update due to additional case and hospital data as a result of late reporting between July 28, 2022 and August 2, 2022. Since the purpose of this data set is to provide point-in-time views of COVID-19 Community Levels on Thursdays, any changes made to the data set during the August 2, 2022 update have been reverted in this update.

August 4, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of July 28, 2022 for 8 counties in Utah (Beaver County, Daggett County, Duchesne County, Garfield County, Iron County, Kane County, Uintah County, and Washington County) case data was missing due to data collection issues. CDC and its partners have resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 4, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change, case rates for all Alabama counties will be lower than expected. As a result, the CCL levels published on August 4, 2022 should be interpreted with caution.

August 11, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of August 4, 2022 for South Carolina have been updated to correct a data collection error that resulted in incorrect case data. CDC and its partners have resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 18, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of August 11, 2022 for Connecticut have been updated to correct a data ingestion error that inflated the CT case rates. CDC, in collaboration with CT, has resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 25, 2022: A laboratory in Tennessee reported a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases. As a result, the 7-day case count and rate may be inflated in many counties and the CCLs published on August 25, 2022 should be interpreted with caution.

August 25, 2022: Due to a data source error, the 7-day case rate for St. Louis County, Missouri, is reported as zero in the COVID-19 Community Level data released on August 25, 2022. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Level for this county should be interpreted with caution.

September 1, 2022: Due to a reporting issue, case rates for all Nebraska counties will include 6 days of data instead of 7 days in the COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released on September 1, 2022. Therefore, the CCLs for all Nebraska counties should be interpreted with caution.

September 8, 2022: Due to a data processing error, the case rate for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania,

DPH is updating and streamlining the COVID-19 cases, deaths, and testing data. As of 6/27/2022, the data will be published in four tables instead of twelve. The COVID-19 Cases, Deaths, and Tests by Day dataset contains cases and test data by date of sample submission. The death data are by date of death. This dataset is updated daily and contains information back to the beginning of the pandemic. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Cases-Deaths-and-Tests-by-Day/g9vi-2ahj. The COVID-19 State Metrics dataset contains over 93 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 21, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-State-Level-Data/qmgw-5kp6 . The COVID-19 County Metrics dataset contains 25 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-County-Level-Data/ujiq-dy22 . The COVID-19 Town Metrics dataset contains 16 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Town-Level-Data/icxw-cada . To protect confidentiality, if a town has fewer than 5 cases or positive NAAT tests over the past 7 days, those data will be suppressed. COVID-19 cases, tests, and associated deaths from COVID-19 that have been reported among Connecticut residents. All data in this report are preliminary; data for previous dates will be updated as new reports are received and data errors are corrected. Deaths reported to the either the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) or Department of Public Health (DPH) are included in the daily COVID-19 update. The case rate per 100,000 includes probable and confirmed cases. Probable and confirmed are defined using the CSTE case definition, which is available online: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.cste.org/resource/resmgr/2020ps/Interim-20-ID-01_COVID-19.pdf The population data used to calculate rates is based on the CT DPH population statistics for 2019, which is available online here: https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Population/Population-Statistics. Prior to 5/10/2021, the population estimates from 2018 were used. Data on Connecticut deaths were obtained from the Connecticut Deaths Registry maintained by the DPH Office of Vital Records. Cause of death was determined by a death certifier (e.g., physician, APRN, medical examiner) using their best clinical judgment. Additionally, all COVID-19 deaths, including suspected or related, are required to be reported to OCME. On April 4, 2020, CT DPH and OCME released a joint memo to providers and facilities within Connecticut providing guidelines for certifying deaths due to COVID-19 that were consistent with the CDC’s guidelines and a reminder of the required reporting to OCME.25,26 As of July 1, 2021, OCME had reviewed every case reported and performed additional investigation on about one-third of reported deaths to better ascertain if COVID-19 did or did not cause or contribute to the death. Some of these investigations resulted in the OCME performing postmortem swabs for PCR testing on individuals whose deaths were suspected to be due to COVID-19, but antemortem diagnosis was unable to be made.31 The OCME issued or re-issued about 10% of COVID-19 death certificates and, when appropriate, removed COVID-19 from the death certificate. For standardization and tabulation of mortality statistics, written cause of death statements made by the certifiers on death certificates are sent to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the CDC which assigns cause of death codes according to the International Causes of Disease 10th Revision (ICD-10) classification system.25,26 CO

Note: DPH is updating and streamlining the COVID-19 cases, deaths, and testing data. As of 6/27/2022, the data will be published in four tables instead of twelve.

The COVID-19 Cases, Deaths, and Tests by Day dataset contains cases and test data by date of sample submission. The death data are by date of death. This dataset is updated daily and contains information back to the beginning of the pandemic. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Cases-Deaths-and-Tests-by-Day/g9vi-2ahj.

The COVID-19 State Metrics dataset contains over 93 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 21, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-State-Level-Data/qmgw-5kp6 .

The COVID-19 County Metrics dataset contains 25 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-County-Level-Data/ujiq-dy22 .

The COVID-19 Town Metrics dataset contains 16 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Town-Level-Data/icxw-cada . To protect confidentiality, if a town has fewer than 5 cases or positive NAAT tests over the past 7 days, those data will be suppressed.

This dataset includes a count and rate per 100,000 population for COVID-19 cases, a count of COVID-19 molecular diagnostic tests, and a percent positivity rate for tests among people living in community settings for the previous two-week period. Dates are based on date of specimen collection (cases and positivity).

A person is considered a new case only upon their first COVID-19 testing result because a case is defined as an instance or bout of illness. If they are tested again subsequently and are still positive, it still counts toward the test positivity metric but they are not considered another case.

Percent positivity is calculated as the number of positive tests among community residents conducted during the 14 days divided by the total number of positive and negative tests among community residents during the same period. If someone was tested more than once during that 14 day period, then those multiple test results (regardless of whether they were positive or negative) are included in the calculation.

These case and test counts do not include cases or tests among people residing in congregate settings, such as nursing homes, assisted living facilities, or correctional facilities.

These data are updated weekly and reflect the previous two full Sunday-Saturday (MMWR) weeks (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/document/MMWR_week_overview.pdf).

DPH note about change from 7-day to 14-day metrics: Prior to 10/15/2020, these metrics were calculated using a 7-day average rather than a 14-day average. The 7-day metrics are no longer being updated as of 10/15/2020 but the archived dataset can be accessed here: https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-case-rate-per-100-000-population-and-perc/s22x-83rd

As you know, we are learning more about COVID-19 all the time, including the best ways to measure COVID-19 activity in our communities. CT DPH has decided to shift to 14-day rates because these are more stable, particularly at the town level, as compared to 7-day rates. In addition, since the school indicators were initially published by DPH last summer, CDC has recommended 14-day rates and other states (e.g., Massachusetts) have started to implement 14-day metrics for monitoring COVID transmission as well.

With respect to geography, we also have learned that many people are looking at the town-level data to inform decision making, despite emphasis on the county-level metrics in the published addenda. This is understandable as there has been variation within counties in COVID-19 activity (for example, rates that are higher in one town than in most other towns in the county).

Additional notes: As of 11/5/2020, CT DPH has added antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 to reported test counts in this dataset. The tests included in this dataset include both molecular and antigen datasets. Molecular tests reported include polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and nucleic acid amplicfication (NAAT) tests.

The population data used to calculate rates is based on the CT DPH population statistics for 2019, which is available online here: https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Population/Population-Statistics. Prior to 5/10/2021, the population estimates from 2018 were used.

Data suppression is applied when the rate is <5 cases per 100,000 or if there are <5 cases within the town. Information on why data suppression rules are applied can be found online here: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/uscs/technical_notes/stat_methods/suppression.htm

Analysis of ‘COVID-19 case rate per 100,000 population and percent test positivity in the last 7 days by town - ARCHIVE’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/ceb31b99-df28-4d47-bfc9-dd3ab1896172 on 26 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

DPH note about change from 7-day to 14-day metrics: As of 10/15/2020, this dataset is no longer being updated. Starting on 10/15/2020, these metrics will be calculated using a 14-day average rather than a 7-day average. The new dataset using 14-day averages can be accessed here: https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-case-rate-per-100-000-population-and-perc/hree-nys2

As you know, we are learning more about COVID-19 all the time, including the best ways to measure COVID-19 activity in our communities. CT DPH has decided to shift to 14-day rates because these are more stable, particularly at the town level, as compared to 7-day rates. In addition, since the school indicators were initially published by DPH last summer, CDC has recommended 14-day rates and other states (e.g., Massachusetts) have started to implement 14-day metrics for monitoring COVID transmission as well.

With respect to geography, we also have learned that many people are looking at the town-level data to inform decision making, despite emphasis on the county-level metrics in the published addenda. This is understandable as there has been variation within counties in COVID-19 activity (for example, rates that are higher in one town than in most other towns in the county).

This dataset includes a weekly count and weekly rate per 100,000 population for COVID-19 cases, a weekly count of COVID-19 PCR diagnostic tests, and a weekly percent positivity rate for tests among people living in community settings. Dates are based on date of specimen collection (cases and positivity).

A person is considered a new case only upon their first COVID-19 testing result because a case is defined as an instance or bout of illness. If they are tested again subsequently and are still positive, it still counts toward the test positivity metric but they are not considered another case.

These case and test counts do not include cases or tests among people residing in congregate settings, such as nursing homes, assisted living facilities, or correctional facilities.

These data are updated weekly; the previous week period for each dataset is the previous Sunday-Saturday, known as an MMWR week (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/document/MMWR_week_overview.pdf). The date listed is the date the dataset was last updated and corresponds to a reporting period of the previous MMWR week. For instance, the data for 8/20/2020 corresponds to a reporting period of 8/9/2020-8/15/2020.

Notes: 9/25/2020: Data for Mansfield and Middletown for the week of Sept 13-19 were unavailable at the time of reporting due to delays in lab reporting.

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

NOTE: This dataset pertains only to the 2020-2021 school year and is no longer being updated. For additional data on COVID-19, visit data.ct.gov/coronavirus. This dataset includes the leading and secondary metrics identified by the Connecticut Department of Health (DPH) and the Department of Education (CSDE) to support local district decision-making on the level of in-person, hybrid (blended), and remote learning model for Pre K-12 education. Data represent daily averages for two-week periods by date of specimen collection (cases and positivity), date of hospital admission, or date of ED visit. Hospitalization data come from the Connecticut Hospital Association and are based on hospital location, not county of patient residence. COVID-19-like illness includes fever and cough or shortness of breath or difficulty breathing or the presence of coronavirus diagnosis code and excludes patients with influenza-like illness. All data are preliminary. These data are updated weekly and reflect the previous two full Sunday-Saturday (MMWR) weeks (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/document/MMWR_week_overview.pdf). These metrics were adapted from recommendations by the Harvard Global Institute and supplemented by existing DPH measures. For national data on COVID-19, see COVID View, the national weekly surveillance summary of U.S. COVID-19 activity, at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html DPH note about change from 7-day to 14-day metrics: Prior to 10/15/2020, these metrics were calculated using a 7-day average rather than a 14-day average. The 7-day metrics are no longer being updated as of 10/15/2020 but the archived dataset can be accessed here: https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/CT-School-Learning-Model-Indicators-by-County/rpph-4ysy As you know, we are learning more about COVID-19 all the time, including the best ways to measure COVID-19 activity in our communities. CT DPH has decided to shift to 14-day rates because these are more stable, particularly at the town level, as compared to 7-day rates. In addition, since the school indicators were initially published by DPH last summer, CDC has recommended 14-day rates and other states (e.g., Massachusetts) have started to implement 14-day metrics for monitoring COVID transmission as well. With respect to geography, we also have learned that many people are looking at the town-level data to inform decision making, despite emphasis on the county-level metrics in the published addenda. This is understandable as there has been variation within counties in COVID-19 activity (for example, rates that are higher in one town than in most other towns in the county).

Note: DPH is updating and streamlining the COVID-19 cases, deaths, and testing data. As of 6/27/2022, the data will be published in four tables instead of twelve.

The COVID-19 Cases, Deaths, and Tests by Day dataset contains cases and test data by date of sample submission. The death data are by date of death. This dataset is updated daily and contains information back to the beginning of the pandemic. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Cases-Deaths-and-Tests-by-Day/g9vi-2ahj.

The COVID-19 State Metrics dataset contains over 93 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 21, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-State-Level-Data/qmgw-5kp6 .

The COVID-19 County Metrics dataset contains 25 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-County-Level-Data/ujiq-dy22 .

The COVID-19 Town Metrics dataset contains 16 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Town-Level-Data/icxw-cada . To protect confidentiality, if a town has fewer than 5 cases or positive NAAT tests over the past 7 days, those data will be suppressed.

COVID-19 cases and associated deaths that have been reported among Connecticut residents, broken down by race and ethnicity. All data in this report are preliminary; data for previous dates will be updated as new reports are received and data errors are corrected. Deaths reported to the either the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) or Department of Public Health (DPH) are included in the COVID-19 update.

The following data show the number of COVID-19 cases and associated deaths per 100,000 population by race and ethnicity. Crude rates represent the total cases or deaths per 100,000 people. Age-adjusted rates consider the age of the person at diagnosis or death when estimating the rate and use a standardized population to provide a fair comparison between population groups with different age distributions. Age-adjustment is important in Connecticut as the median age of among the non-Hispanic white population is 47 years, whereas it is 34 years among non-Hispanic blacks, and 29 years among Hispanics. Because most non-Hispanic white residents who died were over 75 years of age, the age-adjusted rates are lower than the unadjusted rates. In contrast, Hispanic residents who died tend to be younger than 75 years of age which results in higher age-adjusted rates.

The population data used to calculate rates is based on the CT DPH population statistics for 2019, which is available online here: https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Population/Population-Statistics. Prior to 5/10/2021, the population estimates from 2018 were used.

Rates are standardized to the 2000 US Millions Standard population (data available here: https://seer.cancer.gov/stdpopulations/). Standardization was done using 19 age groups (0, 1-4, 5-9, 10-14, ..., 80-84, 85 years and older). More information about direct standardization for age adjustment is available here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statnt/statnt06rv.pdf

Categories are mutually exclusive. The category “multiracial” includes people who answered ‘yes’ to more than one race category. Counts may not add up to total case counts as data on race and ethnicity may be missing. Age adjusted rates calculated only for groups with more than 20 deaths. Abbreviation: NH=Non-Hispanic.

Data on Connecticut deaths were obtained from the Connecticut Deaths Registry maintained by the DPH Office of Vital Records. Cause of death was determined by a death certifier (e.g., physician, APRN, medical examiner) using their best clinical judgment. Additionally, all COVID-19 deaths, including suspected or related, are required to be reported to OCME. On April 4, 2020, CT DPH and OCME released a joint memo to providers and facilities within Connecticut providing guidelines for certifying deaths due to COVID-19 that were consistent with the CDC’s guidelines and a reminder of the required reporting to OCME.25,26 As of July 1, 2021, OCME had reviewed every case reported and performed additional investigation on about one-third of reported deaths to better ascertain if COVID-19 did or did not cause or contribute to the death. Some of these investigations resulted in the OCME performing postmortem swabs for PCR testing on individuals whose deaths were suspected to be due to COVID-19, but antemortem diagnosis was unable to be made.31 The OCME issued or re-issued about 10% of COVID-19 death certificates and, when appropriate, removed COVID-19 from the death certificate. For standardization and tabulation of mortality statistics, written cause of death statements made by the certifiers on death certificates are sent to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the CDC which assigns cause of death codes according to the International Causes of Disease 10th Revision (ICD-10) classification system.25,26 COVID-19 deaths in this report are defined as those for which the death certificate has an ICD-10 code of U07.1 as either a primary (underlying) or a contributing cause of death. More information on COVID-19 mortality can be found at the following link: https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Mortality/Mortality-Statistics

Data are subject to future revision as reporting changes.

Starting in July 2020, this dataset will be updated every weekday.

Additional notes: A delay in the data pull schedule occurred on 06/23/2020. Data from 06/22/2020 was processed on 06/23/2020 at 3:30 PM. The normal data cycle resumed with the data for 06/23/2020.

A network outage on 05/19/2020 resulted in a change in the data pull schedule. Data from 5/19/2020 was processed on 05/20/2020 at 12:00 PM. Data from 5/20/2020 was processed on 5/20/2020 8:30 PM. The normal data cycle resumed on 05/20/2020 with the 8:30 PM data pull. As a result of the network outage, the timestamp on the datasets on the Open Data Portal differ from the timestamp in DPH's daily PDF reports.

Starting 5/10/2021, the date field will represent the date this data was updated on data.ct.gov. Previously the date the data was pulled by DPH was listed, which typically coincided with the date before the data was published on data.ct.gov. This change was made to standardize the COVID-19 data sets on data.ct.gov.

DPH note about change from 7-day to 14-day metrics: As of 10/15/2020, this dataset is no longer being updated. Starting on 10/15/2020, the school learning model indicator metrics will be calculated using a 14-day average rather than a 7-day average. The new school learning model indicators dataset using 14-day averages can be accessed here: https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/CT-School-Learning-Model-Indicators-by-County-14-d/e4bh-ax24

As you know, we are learning more about COVID-19 all the time, including the best ways to measure COVID-19 activity in our communities. CT DPH has decided to shift to 14-day rates because these are more stable, particularly at the town level, as compared to 7-day rates. In addition, since the school indicators were initially published by DPH last summer, CDC has recommended 14-day rates and other states (e.g., Massachusetts) have started to implement 14-day metrics for monitoring COVID transmission as well.

With respect to geography, we also have learned that many people are looking at the town-level data to inform decision making, despite emphasis on the county-level metrics in the published addenda. This is understandable as there has been variation within counties in COVID-19 activity (for example, rates that are higher in one town than in most other towns in the county).

This dataset includes the leading and secondary metrics identified by the Connecticut Department of Health (DPH) and the Department of Education (CSDE) to support local district decision-making on the level of in-person, hybrid (blended), and remote learning model for Pre K-12 education.

Data represent daily averages for each week by date of specimen collection (cases and positivity), date of hospital admission, or date of ED visit. Hospitalization data come from the Connecticut Hospital Association and are based on hospital location, not county of patient residence. COVID-19-like illness includes fever and cough or shortness of breath or difficulty breathing or the presence of coronavirus diagnosis code and excludes patients with influenza-like illness. All data are preliminary.

These data are updated weekly; the previous week period for each dataset is the previous Sunday-Saturday, known as an MMWR week (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/document/MMWR_week_overview.pdf). The date listed is the date the dataset was last updated and corresponds to a reporting period of the previous MMWR week. For instance, the data for 8/20/2020 corresponds to a reporting period of 8/9/2020-8/15/2020.

These metrics were adapted from recommendations by the Harvard Global Institute and supplemented by existing DPH measures.

For national data on COVID-19, see COVID View, the national weekly surveillance summary of U.S. COVID-19 activity, at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

Notes: 9/25/2020: Data for Mansfield and Middletown for the week of Sept 13-19 were unavailable at the time of reporting due to delays in lab reporting.

Note: DPH is updating and streamlining the COVID-19 cases, deaths, and testing data. As of 6/27/2022, the data will be published in four tables instead of twelve. The COVID-19 Cases, Deaths, and Tests by Day dataset contains cases and test data by date of sample submission. The death data are by date of death. This dataset is updated daily and contains information back to the beginning of the pandemic. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Cases-Deaths-and-Tests-by-Day/g9vi-2ahj. The COVID-19 State Metrics dataset contains over 93 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 21, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-State-Level-Data/qmgw-5kp6 . The COVID-19 County Metrics dataset contains 25 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-County-Level-Data/ujiq-dy22 . The COVID-19 Town Metrics dataset contains 16 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Town-Level-Data/icxw-cada . To protect confidentiality, if a town has fewer than 5 cases or positive NAAT tests over the past 7 days, those data will be suppressed. COVID-19 cases and associated deaths that have been reported among Connecticut residents, broken out by age group. All data in this report are preliminary; data for previous dates will be updated as new reports are received and data errors are corrected. Deaths reported to the either the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) or Department of Public Health (DPH) are included in the daily COVID-19 update. Data are reported daily, with timestamps indicated in the daily briefings posted at: portal.ct.gov/coronavirus. Data are subject to future revision as reporting changes. Starting in July 2020, this dataset will be updated every weekday. Additional notes: A delay in the data pull schedule occurred on 06/23/2020. Data from 06/22/2020 was processed on 06/23/2020 at 3:30 PM. The normal data cycle resumed with the data for 06/23/2020. A network outage on 05/19/2020 resulted in a change in the data pull schedule. Data from 5/19/2020 was processed on 05/20/2020 at 12:00 PM. Data from 5/20/2020 was processed on 5/20/2020 8:30 PM. The normal data cycle resumed on 05/20/2020 with the 8:30 PM data pull. As a result of the network outage, the timestamp on the datasets on the Open Data Portal differ from the timestamp in DPH's daily PDF reports. Starting 5/10/2021, the date field will represent the date this data was updated on data.ct.gov. Previously the date the data was pulled by DPH was listed, which typically coincided with the date before the data was published on data.ct.gov. This change was made to standardize the COVID-19 data sets on data.ct.gov.

Analysis of ‘CT School Learning Model Indicators by County (14-day metrics) - ARCHIVE’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/feda0dbb-905d-48c8-81ec-590689a6da8f on 26 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

NOTE: This dataset pertains only to the 2020-2021 school year and is no longer being updated. For additional data on COVID-19, visit data.ct.gov/coronavirus.

This dataset includes the leading and secondary metrics identified by the Connecticut Department of Health (DPH) and the Department of Education (CSDE) to support local district decision-making on the level of in-person, hybrid (blended), and remote learning model for Pre K-12 education.

Data represent daily averages for two-week periods by date of specimen collection (cases and positivity), date of hospital admission, or date of ED visit. Hospitalization data come from the Connecticut Hospital Association and are based on hospital location, not county of patient residence. COVID-19-like illness includes fever and cough or shortness of breath or difficulty breathing or the presence of coronavirus diagnosis code and excludes patients with influenza-like illness. All data are preliminary.

These data are updated weekly and reflect the previous two full Sunday-Saturday (MMWR) weeks (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/document/MMWR_week_overview.pdf).

These metrics were adapted from recommendations by the Harvard Global Institute and supplemented by existing DPH measures.

For national data on COVID-19, see COVID View, the national weekly surveillance summary of U.S. COVID-19 activity, at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

DPH note about change from 7-day to 14-day metrics: Prior to 10/15/2020, these metrics were calculated using a 7-day average rather than a 14-day average. The 7-day metrics are no longer being updated as of 10/15/2020 but the archived dataset can be accessed here: https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/CT-School-Learning-Model-Indicators-by-County/rpph-4ysy

As you know, we are learning more about COVID-19 all the time, including the best ways to measure COVID-19 activity in our communities. CT DPH has decided to shift to 14-day rates because these are more stable, particularly at the town level, as compared to 7-day rates. In addition, since the school indicators were initially published by DPH last summer, CDC has recommended 14-day rates and other states (e.g., Massachusetts) have started to implement 14-day metrics for monitoring COVID transmission as well.

With respect to geography, we also have learned that many people are looking at the town-level data to inform decision making, despite emphasis on the county-level metrics in the published addenda. This is understandable as there has been variation within counties in COVID-19 activity (for example, rates that are higher in one town than in most other towns in the county).

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

ObjectiveThis study aimed to provide a basis for epidemic prevention and control measures as well as the management of re-positive personnel by analyzing and summarizing the characteristics of re-positive patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Delta variant infections discharged from a hospital in the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region in 2021.MethodsThis case-control study included a total of 45 patients with Delta variant infections diagnosed in the Fourth People's Hospital of the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region between October 17 and November 28, 2021. Based on the nucleic acid test results post-discharge, the patients were dichotomized into re-positive and non-re-positive groups. Based on the time of the first re-positive test, the re-positive group was further divided into <7 and ≥7 days groups to compare their clinical characteristics and explore the possible influencing factors of this re-positivity.ResultsOf the 45 total patients, 16 were re-positive (re-positivity rate: 35.6%), including four patients who were re-positive after 2 weeks (re-positivity rate: 8.8%). The median time of the first re-positive after discharge was 7 days (IQR: 14-3). The re-positive group was younger than the non-re-positive group (35 vs. 53, P < 0.05), had a higher proportion of patients who were not receiving antiviral therapy (56.2 vs. 17.2%, P < 0.05). The median CT value of nucleic acid in the re-positive group was considerably greater than that at admission (36.7 vs. 22.6 P < 0.05). The findings demonstrated that neutralizing antibody treatment significantly raised the average IgG antibody level in patients, particularly in those who had not received COVID-19 vaccine (P < 0.05). The median lowest nucleic acid CT value of the ≥7 days group during the re-positive period and the immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody level at discharge were lower than those in the <7 days group (P < 0.05). When compared to the non-positive group, patients in the ≥7 days group had a higher median virus nucleic acid CT value (27.1 vs. 19.2, P < 0.05) and absolute number of lymphocytes at admission (1,360 vs. 952, P < 0.05), and a lower IgG antibody level at discharge (P < 0.05).ConclusionsIn conclusion, this study found that: (1) The re-positivity rate of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant infection in this group was 35.6%, while the re-positivity rate was the same as that of the original strain 2 weeks after discharge (8.0%). (2) Young people, patients who did not use antiviral therapy or had low IgG antibody levels at discharge were more likely to have re-positive. And the CT value of nucleic acid at the time of initial infection was higher in re-positive group. We speculated that the higher the CT value of nucleic acid at the time of initial infection, the longer the intermittent shedding time of the virus. (3) Re-positive patients were asymptomatic. The median CT value of nucleic acid was > 35 at the re-positive time, and the close contacts were not detected as positive. The overall transmission risk of re-positive patients is low.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been part of Slovakia since March 2020. Intensive laboratory testing ended in October 2022, when the number of tests dropped significantly, but the state of the pandemic continues to this day. For the management of COVID-19, it is important to find an indicator that can predict pandemic changes in the community. The average daily/weekly Ct value with a certain time delay can predict changes in the number of cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which can be a useful indicator for the healthcare system. The study analyzed the results of 1,420,572 RT-qPCR tests provided by one accredited laboratory during the ongoing pandemic in Slovakia from March 2020 to September 2022. The total positivity of the analyzed tests was 24.64%. The average Ct values found were the highest in the age group of 3–5 years, equal to the number 30.75; the lowest were in the age group >65 years, equal to the number 27. The average weekly Ct values ranged from 22.33 (pandemic wave week) to 30.12 (summer week). We have summarized the results of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing in Slovakia with the scope defined by the rate and positivity of tests carried out at Medirex a.s. laboratories.

The global market for Static CT Parts is experiencing robust growth, driven by increasing demand for advanced medical imaging technologies and heightened security needs across various sectors. The market's expansion is fueled by several key factors: the rising prevalence of chronic diseases requiring sophisticated diagnostic tools, increased investments in healthcare infrastructure particularly in developing economies, and the growing adoption of CT scanning in security checkpoints for enhanced threat detection. Technological advancements leading to more compact, efficient, and cost-effective Static CT components are also contributing to market expansion. The market is segmented by application (Medical, Security Check) and type (Static CT Tube, Static CT Chip, Static CT Detector, Other). While the medical segment currently holds a significant market share, the security check segment is witnessing rapid growth due to increasing concerns about terrorism and other security threats. Competition among established players like Rapiscan, SureScan, NUCTECH, Nanovision Technology, and Raymemo Vacuum Technology Wuxi is driving innovation and price competitiveness. However, high initial investment costs for advanced Static CT systems and the need for skilled professionals to operate and maintain them pose challenges to market growth. Despite these restraints, the long-term outlook for the Static CT Parts market remains positive, with a projected Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) suggesting substantial market expansion over the next decade. Regional analysis indicates strong growth in North America and Asia Pacific, driven by robust healthcare infrastructure and increasing adoption of advanced imaging technologies in these regions. The forecast period (2025-2033) anticipates continued growth, primarily propelled by technological advancements resulting in smaller, more affordable Static CT parts. The integration of these parts into portable and mobile CT scanning systems will further broaden market reach, especially in underserved regions. Furthermore, regulatory approvals and rising awareness regarding the benefits of early disease detection through CT scanning are expected to positively impact market demand. While challenges related to stringent regulatory compliance and the potential for technological obsolescence exist, the overall growth trajectory of the Static CT Parts market is expected to remain positive, driven by the persistent need for advanced imaging and security solutions globally. The competitive landscape is dynamic, with ongoing research and development fostering innovation and offering a range of solutions tailored to specific applications and regional needs.

Snapshot img

The CT scanners market share is expected to increase by USD 2.18 billion from 2020 to 2025, and the market’s growth momentum will accelerate at a CAGR of 6.78%.

This CT scanners market research report provides valuable insights on the post COVID-19 impact on the market, which will help companies evaluate their business approaches. Furthermore, this report extensively covers CT scanners market segmentation by product (standalone and portable) and geography (North America, Europe, Asia, and ROW). The CT scanners market report also offers information on several market vendors, including Canon Inc., Carestream Health Inc., FUJIFILM Holdings Corp., General Electric Co., HTSI Healthcare Solutions, J. Morita Corp., Koninklijke Philips NV, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Siemens Healthineers AG, and UIH Solutions, LLC among others.

What will the CT Scanners Market Size be During the Forecast Period?

Download the Free Report Sample to Unlock the CT Scanners Market Size for the Forecast Period and Other Important Statistics

CT Scanners Market: Key Drivers and Challenges

Based on our research output, there has been a positive impact on the market growth during and post COVID-19 era. The increasing prevalence of chronic conditions is notably driving the CT scanners market growth, although factors such as high costs associated with CT imaging may impede the market growth. Our research analysts have studied the historical data and deduced the key market drivers and the COVID-19 pandemic impact on the CT scanners industry. The holistic analysis of the drivers will help in deducing end goals and refining marketing strategies to gain a competitive edge.

Key CT Scanners Market Driver

One of the key factors driving growth in the CT scanners market is the increasing prevalence of chronic conditions. The prevalence of chronic conditions, such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and neurological diseases, is increasing globally, which is triggering the demand for diagnostic imaging products, including CT scanner systems. Globally, the incidence of several respiratory diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, and lung cancer, is also increasing. The prevalence of asthma is increasing rapidly in low and middle-income countries, especially those in Asia. The high incidence of cancer will increase the demand for cancer screening and diagnoses and the increasing prevalence of other chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular diseases and neurological disorders, will further augment the demand for CT scanners during the forecast period.

Key CT Scanners Market Challenge

The high costs associated with CT imaging will be a major challenge for the CT scanners market during the forecast period. Healthcare is a cost-intensive industry with huge capital allocation toward manufacturing. The fixed costs in terms of plant, machinery, and associated variable costs for raw materials and labor account for a major part of the expenditure for manufacturing medical equipment. Thus, all these factors have the potential to impede the growth of the healthcare equipment market, including the global CT scanners market. The high cost of CT scanners and procedures can increase the cost burden on end-users and patients, respectively. The service maintenance cost includes the cost of preventative maintenance, parts, labor charges, and technicians’ allowance. This will further increase the cost for end-users, such as hospitals, diagnostic centers, and clinics. The high costs associated with CT scan procedures can reduce their adoption, especially in developing countries.

This CT scanners market analysis report also provides detailed information on other upcoming trends and challenges that will have a far-reaching effect on the market growth. The actionable insights on the trends and challenges will help companies evaluate and develop growth strategies for 2021-2025.

Who are the Major CT Scanners Market Vendors?

The report analyzes the market’s competitive landscape and offers information on several market vendors, including:

Canon Inc.
Carestream Health Inc.
FUJIFILM Holdings Corp.
General Electric Co.
HTSI Healthcare Solutions
J. Morita Corp.
Koninklijke Philips NV
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Siemens Healthineers AG
UIH Solutions, LLC

This statistical study of the CT scanners market encompasses successful business strategies deployed by the key vendors. The CT scanners market is fragmented and the vendors are deploying growth strategies such as focusing on developing technologically advanced equipment to compete in the market.

To make the most of the opportunities and recover from post COVID-19 impact, market vendors should focus more on the growth prospects in the fast-growing segments, while maintaining their positions in the slow-growing segments.

The CT scanners market forecast report offers in-depth insights into key v

Analysis of the proposed model in the COVID-CT dataset.

The European Computed Tomography (CT) industry is experiencing robust growth, projected to reach a market size of €2.19 billion in 2025 and maintain a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 6.16% from 2025 to 2033. This expansion is fueled by several key factors. Technological advancements, such as the development of multi-slice CT scanners with improved image quality and faster scan times, are driving increased adoption across various applications. The rising prevalence of chronic diseases, particularly cardiovascular conditions, neurological disorders, and cancer, is creating a significant demand for accurate and timely diagnostic imaging. Furthermore, an aging population in Europe necessitates more frequent and sophisticated diagnostic procedures, contributing to market growth. Growth is also supported by increased government funding for healthcare infrastructure improvements and the expansion of diagnostic imaging centers. However, the market faces challenges, including high equipment costs, stringent regulatory approvals for new technologies, and potential budgetary constraints within healthcare systems. The segmentation reveals strong demand across various applications, with oncology, neurology, and cardiovascular applications leading the way. Leading players like GE Healthcare, Philips, Siemens, and Canon Medical Systems dominate the market, competing through technological innovation and strategic partnerships. While specific regional data for the UK, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy are unavailable, a logical projection based on population density, healthcare infrastructure, and economic strength suggests these countries account for a significant portion of the overall European market, with Germany and the UK likely leading the regional share. The market's future trajectory points to continued growth, particularly with the integration of AI and machine learning in image analysis and diagnostics. The competitive landscape in the European CT market is highly concentrated, with major players strategically focusing on product differentiation, service enhancements, and expansion into emerging markets within Europe. Companies are investing heavily in research and development to improve image quality, reduce radiation exposure, and enhance workflow efficiency. The emergence of innovative technologies such as spectral CT and AI-powered image analysis is reshaping the industry, creating new opportunities for growth and competition. The market is also witnessing increasing collaborations between manufacturers and healthcare providers to optimize the use of CT technology and improve patient outcomes. Despite the challenges, the long-term outlook for the European CT market remains positive, driven by technological advancements, increasing demand for diagnostic imaging, and the ongoing expansion of healthcare infrastructure across the region. Recent developments include: October 2022: GE Healthcare introduced Omni Legend positron emission tomography/ computed tomography platform at the 36th Annual congress of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine in Barcelona, Spain., June 2022: Siemens Healthineers launched innovations in SPECT/CT imaging at the European Congress of Radiology in Germany. The company demonstrated the Symbia Prospecta, SPECT/CT system with CE mark clearance that has advanced in imaging technologies.. Key drivers for this market are: Increasing Incidence of Cancer & Chronic Diseases, Advancement in Technology. Potential restraints include: Increasing Incidence of Cancer & Chronic Diseases, Advancement in Technology. Notable trends are: Oncology Segment is Expected to Hold the Largest Market Share in the European CT Market Over the Forecast Period.

The global CT Equipment Parts market is experiencing robust growth, driven by the increasing prevalence of chronic diseases necessitating advanced diagnostic imaging, technological advancements leading to higher image quality and faster scan times, and the expanding global healthcare infrastructure. The market size in 2025 is estimated at $2.5 billion, exhibiting a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 7% from 2025 to 2033. This growth is fueled by factors such as the rising demand for minimally invasive procedures, increasing adoption of advanced imaging techniques in developing economies, and the growing need for regular health check-ups. Furthermore, the integration of AI and machine learning in CT imaging is creating opportunities for improved diagnostic accuracy and streamlined workflows, thereby contributing to market expansion. Despite this positive outlook, several restraints exist. These include the high cost of CT equipment and its associated parts, stringent regulatory requirements for medical devices, and the potential for radiation exposure associated with CT scans. Nevertheless, the market is segmented into various parts, including detectors, X-ray tubes, generators, and other components. Key players such as GE, Siemens, Canon Medical Systems (RCAN), Philips, FujiFilm, ZEISS, and several other regional players are actively engaged in innovation and competition, further driving market growth and shaping the future landscape of CT technology and parts supply. The market is geographically diverse, with North America and Europe currently holding significant market share, however, the Asia-Pacific region is anticipated to exhibit substantial growth in the coming years due to rising healthcare expenditure and increasing adoption rates.

The global CT Rental market is experiencing robust growth, driven by increasing demand for advanced medical imaging technologies, particularly in developing economies. The market size in 2025 is estimated at $2.5 billion, exhibiting a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 7% from 2025 to 2033. This growth is fueled by several key factors. Firstly, the rising prevalence of chronic diseases necessitates frequent CT scans, increasing the need for accessible and cost-effective rental options. Secondly, hospitals and clinics are increasingly opting for rentals to manage capital expenditure and adapt to fluctuating patient volumes. This is particularly true for smaller healthcare facilities with limited budgets. The flexibility offered by rental agreements allows institutions to acquire advanced equipment without significant upfront investment, enabling them to offer cutting-edge diagnostic services. Finally, technological advancements in CT scanners, such as improved image quality and reduced radiation exposure, further drive market expansion. The market segmentation reveals a significant portion of revenue generated from daily rentals, catering to the immediate diagnostic needs of medical professionals. Geographic expansion, particularly in regions with expanding healthcare infrastructure and rising disposable incomes, presents significant opportunities for market growth. However, certain restraints impede market growth. High rental costs can be a deterrent for some healthcare providers, especially in regions with limited healthcare budgets. Moreover, the market is influenced by the lifecycle of medical equipment and technological obsolescence. The need for continuous upgrades and replacements necessitates a dynamic approach for rental providers, requiring proactive investment in new technologies and equipment management strategies. Competition among established players and new entrants is also intensifying, impacting pricing strategies and profitability. Despite these challenges, the long-term outlook for the CT rental market remains positive, driven by continuous technological advancements and the increasing global need for improved diagnostic capabilities. The growing adoption of telemedicine and remote diagnostics is also likely to create new avenues for CT rental services. The market is projected to reach approximately $4.2 billion by 2033, highlighting its significant growth trajectory. This report provides a detailed analysis of the global CT rental market, projected to reach $2.5 billion by 2028. We delve into market concentration, key trends, dominant segments, product insights, and future growth drivers, offering valuable intelligence for businesses operating within or considering entry into this dynamic sector. This report utilizes data from reputable sources and industry estimates to provide a realistic and actionable market overview.

The global market for one-piece lightweight CT overlays is experiencing robust growth, driven by the increasing demand for improved patient comfort and reduced imaging artifacts during computed tomography (CT) scans. The market's expansion is fueled by several factors, including technological advancements leading to lighter and more comfortable overlay materials, a rising global prevalence of conditions requiring CT scans (cancer, trauma, cardiovascular disease), and a growing preference for single-piece designs that simplify workflow and reduce the risk of misalignment. While precise market sizing data is unavailable, based on industry reports and similar medical device markets exhibiting similar growth trajectories and CAGR, we estimate the global market value to be approximately $150 million in 2025, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of around 7% projected through 2033. This growth is anticipated to be driven largely by the adoption of lightweight overlays in hospitals and clinics across North America and Europe, representing significant market share, but with considerable growth potential in Asia-Pacific regions. Key segments within the market include child and adult overlays, reflecting the diverse patient populations requiring CT scans. The use of one-piece designs is becoming increasingly prevalent, contributing to higher efficiency and improved image quality. While the market faces some restraints such as price sensitivity in certain regions and the availability of alternative imaging techniques, the overall positive trend is expected to continue, driven by the inherent advantages of lightweight CT overlays in enhancing patient experience and improving the accuracy of medical diagnoses. Leading companies such as Med-Tec, Elekta, and Aktina Medical are at the forefront of innovation, with ongoing efforts to develop even lighter, more adaptable, and cost-effective solutions. This competitive landscape is further stimulating market growth as companies strive to provide superior product offerings and improved patient care.

The global Static CT Parts market is experiencing robust growth, driven by increasing demand for advanced medical imaging technologies and heightened security screening needs across various sectors. The market, estimated at $2.5 billion in 2025, is projected to witness a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 7% from 2025 to 2033, reaching an estimated market value exceeding $4.5 billion by 2033. This expansion is fueled by several key factors. Technological advancements leading to higher-resolution imaging and faster scan times are boosting adoption in medical applications, particularly in oncology and trauma care. Simultaneously, the growing concerns over global security and terrorism are driving significant investments in advanced security screening technologies incorporating Static CT Parts at airports, seaports, and other critical infrastructure points. The segmentation reveals a strong preference for Static CT Tubes, owing to their superior image quality and reliability, although Static CT Chips and Detectors are gaining traction due to their cost-effectiveness and suitability for specific applications. North America and Europe currently dominate the market share, benefiting from established healthcare infrastructure and stringent security regulations. However, the Asia-Pacific region is poised for rapid growth, driven by increasing healthcare spending and infrastructural development. While the market faces challenges such as high initial investment costs associated with Static CT systems and potential regulatory hurdles, the overall outlook remains positive, driven by continuous technological improvements and expanding applications. The competitive landscape is characterized by a mix of established players like Rapiscan and NUCTECH and emerging innovative companies like Nanovision Technology. These companies are focusing on developing advanced Static CT parts with enhanced performance and reduced costs. Strategic partnerships, mergers and acquisitions, and a continuous focus on research and development are shaping the market dynamics. Future growth will likely be driven by the development of portable and more compact Static CT systems, improved image processing algorithms, and integration with advanced data analytics platforms. The increasing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in image analysis also holds immense potential for market expansion. Regional variations in growth rates are expected, with developing economies witnessing faster adoption rates due to the increased focus on improving healthcare and security infrastructure.