Abstract
Objective: This systematic review estimated the pooled R0 for early COVID-19 outbreaks and identified the impact of study-related factors such as methods, study location and study period on the estimated R0. Methods: We searched electronic databases for human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 30 September 2020 with no restriction on country/region. Two investigators independently performed the data extraction of the studies selected for inclusion during full-text screening. The primary outcome, R0, was analysed by random-effects meta-analysis using the restricted maximum likelihood method. Results: We identified 26,425 studies through our search and included 151 articles in the systematic review, among which 81 were included in the meta-analysis. The estimates of R0 from studies included in the meta-analysis ranged from 0.4 to 12.58. The pooled R0 for COVID-19 was estimated to be 2.66 (95% CI, 2.41–2.94). The results showed heterogeneity among studies and strong evidence of a small-study effect. Conclusions: The high heterogeneity in studies makes the use of the R0 for basic epidemic planning difficult and presents a huge problem for risk assessment and data synthesis. Consensus on the use of R0 for outbreak assessment is needed, and its use for assessing epidemic risk is not recommended.
Subject
Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference38 articles.
1. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China
2. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard
https://covid19.who.int/
3. Correcting the Actual Reproduction Number: A Simple Method to Estimate R0 from Early Epidemic Growth Data
4. How Robust are the Estimated Effects of Nonpharmaceutical Interventions against COVID-19?;Sharma;Proceedings of the 34th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2020),2020
5. A guide to R — the pandemic’s misunderstood metric
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献