Use of public data to describe COVID-19 contact tracing in Hubei Province and non-Hubei provinces in China between 20 January and 29 February 2020

  1. Emilio Dirlikov
  2. Suizan Zhou
  3. Lifeng Han
  4. Zhijun Li
  5. Ling Hao
  6. Alexander Millman
  7. Barbara Marston

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objective: Contact tracing has been used in China and several other countries in the WHO Western Pacific Region as part of the COVID-19 response. We describe COVID-19 cases and the number of contacts traced and quarantined per case as part of COVID-19 emergency public health response activities in China. Methods: We abstracted publicly available, online aggregated data published in daily COVID-19 situational reports by China’s National Health Commission and provincial health commissions between 20 January and 29 February 2020. The number of new contacts traced by report date was computed as the difference between total contacts traced in consecutive reports. A proxy for the number of contacts traced per case was computed as the number of new contacts traced divided by the number of new cases. Results: During the study period, China reported 80 968 new COVID-19 cases and 659 899 contacts. In Hubei Province, there were 67 608 cases and 264 878 contacts, representing 83% and 40% of the total, respectively. Non-Hubei provinces reported tracing 1.5 times more contacts than Hubei Province; the weekly number of contacts traced per case was also higher in non-Hubei provinces than in Hubei Province and increased from 17.2 in epidemiological week 4 to 115.7 in epidemiological week 9. Discussion: More contacts per case were reported from areas and periods with lower COVID-19 case counts. With other non-pharmaceutical interventions used in China, contact tracing and quarantining large numbers of potentially infected contacts probably contributed to reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.5365/wpsar.2021.12.3.808
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.04.20243972: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    This report has several limitations. First, without individual patient-level data, our analysis is based on aggregate data and subject to ecological fallacy. Second, data were compiled from publicly available online reports, and we did not have access to primary data. This required excluding eight provinces and did not allow analysis of available contact tracing resources. As such, data could not be externally verified, and the data collection methods were not available, including confirmation that all reported contacts traced were linked to reported confirmed cases. Second, inter-provincial variability may have affected reported data comparability, and eight provinces were excluded. Finally, we do not know the distribution of contacts for individual cases. The actual number of contacts traced likely differed by exposure type (e.g., family, shopping center, public transport), and the proxy (mean contacts traced per case) would overestimate median contacts per case when large numbers of contacts were linked to a single case (i.e., attending a public gathering with a confirmed case). Despite these limitations, our findings help describe contact tracing in China as part of the COVID-19 response. Future investigations can aim to better understand the role of COVID-19 contact tracing and quarantine, including timeliness of contact tracing and quarantine, prioritization of contacts who are more likely associated with viral transmission and the effectiveness of contact tracing in di...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.12.04.20243972v1 on medRxiv