What do we know about SARS-CoV-2 transmission? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the secondary attack rate and associated risk factors

  1. Wee Chian Koh
  2. Lin Naing
  3. Liling Chaw
  4. Muhammad Ali Rosledzana
  5. Mohammad Fathi Alikhan
  6. Sirajul Adli Jamaludin
  7. Faezah Amin
  8. Asiah Omar
  9. Alia Shazli
  10. Matthew Griffith
  11. Roberta Pastore
  12. Justin Wong

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0240205
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.21.20108746: (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

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data source and search strategy: We performed a literature search of published journal articles in PubMed and pre-print articles in medRxiv and bioRxiv from January 1, 2020.
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    bioRxiv
    suggested: (bioRxiv, RRID:SCR_003933)
    Statistical analysis was done in STATA 14 using the package metan, metafunnel, and metabias (15-17).
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    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:
    Strengths and limitations: Our analysis has important limitations. The studies selected were based on field investigation; variability was noted with respect to study design, the number of individuals assessed, clinical definitions, the extent to which confirmatory laboratory tests were used, the methods of clinical data collection, and the duration of follow-up. Studies may have different definitions of household and contacts and are subject to recall and observer bias (141). Moreover, without accounting for outside sources of infection, setting-specific SARs are likely to be overestimated (117). In fact, none of the reviewed studies addressed the composition of secondary vs. community infections when estimating the SAR or used viral sequencing to confirm homology between the strains infecting the index and secondary cases in the household. All studies on SAR were retrospective transmission studies based on contact tracing datasets where the index case determination or the direction of transmission may be uncertain, particularly in diseases such as COVID-19 where a substantial proportion of cases are asymptomatic or mild. An additional challenge concerns the timing of recruitment of cases and their contacts during the course of an epidemic. Studies conducted in early stages can provide timely SAR estimates; however, this may be influenced by behavioral factors and other non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g. community quarantine) that alter over the course of the epidemic (1...

    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 10.1101/2020.05.21.20108746 on medRxiv