Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Reliability of Early Estimates of the Basic Reproduction Number of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Dhungel, Bibha; Rahman, Md Shafiur; Rahman, Md Mahfuzur; Bhandari, Aliza K C; Le, Phuong Mai; Biva, Nushrat Alam; Gilmour, Stuart.
  • Dhungel B; Graduate School of Public Health, St. Luke's International University, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan.
  • Rahman MS; Department of Health Policy, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo 157-8535, Japan.
  • Rahman MM; Research Centre for Child Mental Development, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu 431-3192, Japan.
  • Bhandari AKC; United Graduate School of Child Development, Osaka University, Kanazawa University, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Chiba University and University of Fukui, Hamamatsu 431-3192, Japan.
  • Le PM; Global Public Health Research Foundation, Dhaka 1230, Bangladesh.
  • Biva NA; Graduate School of Public Health, St. Luke's International University, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan.
  • Gilmour S; Department of Health Policy, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo 157-8535, Japan.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(18)2022 Sep 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2055222
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(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Epidemics / COVID-19 Type of study: Observational study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Humans Language: English Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Ijerph191811613

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Epidemics / COVID-19 Type of study: Observational study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Humans Language: English Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Ijerph191811613