Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Reproductive number of coronavirus: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on global level evidence

Reproductive number of coronavirus: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on global level evidence

  • Md. Arif Billah, 
  • Md. Mamun Miah, 
  • Md. Nuruzzaman Khan
PLOS
x

Abstract

Background

The coronavirus (SARS-COV-2) is now a global concern because of its higher transmission capacity and associated adverse consequences including death. The reproductive number of coronavirus provides an estimate of the possible extent of the transmission. This study aims to provide a summary reproductive number of coronavirus based on available global level evidence.

Methods

A total of three databases were searched on September 15, 2020: PubMed, Web of Science, and Science Direct. The searches were conducted using a pre-specified search strategy to record studies reported the reproductive number of coronavirus from its inception in December 2019. It includes keywords of coronavirus and its reproductive number, which were combined using the Boolean operators (AND, OR). Based on the included studies, we estimated a summary reproductive number by using the meta-analysis. We used narrative synthesis to explain the results of the studies where the reproductive number was reported, however, were not possible to include in the meta-analysis because of the lack of data (mostly due to confidence interval was not reported).

Results

Total of 42 studies included in this review whereas 29 of them were included in the meta-analysis. The estimated summary reproductive number was 2.87 (95% CI, 2.39–3.44). We found evidence of very high heterogeneity (99.5%) of the reproductive number reported in the included studies. Our sub-group analysis was found the significant variations of reproductive number across the country for which it was estimated, method and model that were used to estimate the reproductive number, number of case that was considered to estimate the reproductive number, and the type of reproductive number that was estimated. The highest reproductive number was reported for the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship in Japan (14.8). In the country-level, the higher reproductive number was reported for France (R, 6.32, 95% CI, 5.72–6.99) following Germany (R, 6.07, 95% CI, 5.51–6.69) and Spain (R, 3.56, 95% CI, 1.62–7.82). The higher reproductive number was reported if it was estimated by using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method (MCMC) method and the Epidemic curve model. We also reported significant heterogeneity of the type of reproductive number- a high-value reported if it was the time-dependent reproductive number.

Conclusion

The estimated summary reproductive number indicates an exponential increase of coronavirus infection in the coming days. Comprehensive policies and programs are important to reduce new infections as well as the associated adverse consequences including death.

Background

Coronavirus (SARS-COV-2) is now a global concern that speared out to 213 countries or territories as of September 15, 2020. More than 29.5 million population have been infected so far worldwide, of which more than 933,720 are died [1]. Consequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared it as pandemic and suggested countries to take aggressive measures to reduce new infections [2]. Given no treatments or vaccines available for this virus, countries are now imposing numerous non-medical measures to reduce further infections, which include restricting people's movements, banned international and local travels, quarantine, and isolation [3]. However, the new infections are rising exponentially, in all ages and sexes, irrespective of the countries [4, 5]. Reducing new infections, therefore, needs further comprehensive preventive measures.

Knowing the accurate reproductive number of coronavirus, defined as the capability of transmission per primary infected person to the secondarily infected persons, is significant for various reasons, including to assess epidemic transmissibility and to predict the future trend of spreading [6]. These are important to reduce new infections through designing effective control measures such as social distancing [7] and to know the expected duration of keeping control measures [5]. Moreover, it also helps to develop an effective epidemiological mathematical model considering possible transmission ways, such as, droplets and direct contacts with coronavirus infected patients (COVID-19), which are important to know the risk population and the appropriate epidemiologic parameters [8, 9].

There are various researches in the country level that have been reported the reproductive number of coronavirus. However, they were not consistent in terms of their measurement procedures and methods used, therefore, the estimated reproductive number was quite different [8, 10]. Other reported sources of variations of the reported reproductive number were the country for which the reproductive number was estimated and its stages of infection and preventive measures applied [11]. Another important source of variation of the estimated reproductive number was the type of reproductive numbers considered [8]. Of the three reproductive numbers estimated, namely the basic reproductive number (R0), net reproductive number (Re), and time dependent reproductive number (Rt), are applicable for different purposes. For instance, the basic reproductive number is used when an infected person can mix randomly to non-infected persons (i.e., no control intervention was applied), whereas, the net and time-dependent reproductive number are used when control interventions were applied.

To settle these disagreements on the reported reproductive number and know the current situation of infection, a summary estimate of the reproductive number is important. However, of the three studies that have been provided summary reproductive number so far were limited in several areas and did little to settle these disagreements [1214]. For instance, they reported a summary estimate of the basic reproductive number without considering the net reproductive number and the time-dependent reproductive number. However, it is around 10 months that have already been gone since the first infection of the coronavirus in December 2019 and all countries have been imposed several prevention measures. Therefore, the estimation of the basic reproductive number was available only in a few studies of which these summary estimates were based. Moreover, these studies were also failed to address the heterogeneity of their estimated reproductive number though it was found higher [1214].

Considering the higher variability of the reported reproductive number and lack of relevant research, in this study, an attempt has been made to provide a summary reproductive number of coronavirus. The sources of variation of the reported reproductive number were also addressed. Findings will help policymakers to know about the possible increase of coronavirus infected patients and take policies and programs accordingly.

Methods

Literature searches were conducted in three databases on September 15, 2020: PubMed, Web of Science, and Science Direct. The pre-specified search strategies were used to search databases (S1-S3 Tables in S1 File). We developed search strategies consisting of virus-specific (corona virus, coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, nCoV-2019) and reproductive number related (reproduction number, transmissibility) keywords that were combined using the Boolean operators (AND, OR). Additional searches were conducted in the reference list of the selected articles, and the relevant journal’s websites.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies meet the following inclusion criteria were included: wrote in the English language, presented a reproductive number of the coronavirus instead of considering its type (basic reproductive number, net reproductive number, and time-dependent reproductive number. We did not apply any time restriction, i.e. all studies from the onset of coronavirus to the date of conducting formal search were included. Studies that did not meet these criteria were excluded.

Data extraction

Two authors (MAB, MMM) extracted information by using a pre-designed, trailed, and modified data extraction sheet. The extracted information includes: year of publication, study’s location, model used to estimate the reproductive number, time for when the reproductive number was estimated, number of cases considered to estimate the reproductive number, assumption(s) that was/were set to a calculate the reproductive number, intervention strategy, and the estimated reproductive number with its 95% confidence interval (CI). The corresponding author (MNK) solved any disagreement on information extraction.

Statistical analysis

The information recorded were mostly dichotomous where the numerical reproductive number was reported in all selected studies. We, therefore, used both narrative synthesis and meta-analysis to summaries findings from retrieved studies. Narrative synthesis was used to explain the findings of the studies where the reproductive number was reported, however, its 95% confidence interval was missing that did not enable them to be included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis was used for the studies that consistently reported the reproductive number and its 95% confidence interval. We first use the fixed-effect meta-analysis to get a pool reproductive number for the studies which reported more than one reproductive number for a country calculated based on different assumptions. Later this pooled estimate was used to give a summary estimate of the reproductive number. We used the random-effect meta-analysis to estimate the summary reproductive number. The model was chosen based on the heterogeneity assessment (I2) which reported a very high heterogeneity of the reported reproductive number across different included studies. Later we explored the sources of heterogeneity through sub-groups analysis across the selected studies’ characteristics. These include the country for which the reported reproductive number was estimated, the method and model that were used to estimate the reproductive number, total number of case that was considered to estimate the reproductive number and type of reproductive number that was reported. We also assessed the publication bias through visual inspection of the funnel plot and Egger’s regression asymmetry test. The trim-and-fill procedure was used when evidence of publication bias was found. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) study quality assessment tool was used to assess study quality. The Stata software version 15.1 (Stata Corp, College Station, Texas, USA) was used to perform all analyses.

Results

Literature search results

Total of 541 studies included, 528 of them were extracted from three databases searched (Fig 1 and S1-S3 Tables in S1 File). Of these, 494 studies were excluded through title and abstract screening leaving 47 studies for full-text review. A total of 42 of them were finally included in this study and 29 of them were included in the meta-analysis. All included studies were moderate to high in quality (Table 1 and S4 Table in S1 File).

thumbnail
Fig 1. Schematic representation of the included studies reporting the reproductive number of coronavirus published between December 2019 and September 2020.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242128.g001

thumbnail
Table 1. Background characteristics of the 29 studies included in the meta-analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242128.t001

Majority of the studies selected were conducted in China (8) [6, 1521] and its province (6) [2227]. The remaining studies were conducted in Japan (3) [2831] followed by South Korea (3) [3234], Italy (2) [35, 36], Spain (2) [36, 37], and France and Germany (1) [36]. Four studies included were conducted based on multiple countries’ data [7, 3840].

Estimated reproduction number

The estimated summary reproductive number based on the 29 studies included in the meta-analysis was 2.87 (95% CI, 2.39–3.34) (Fig 2). We found a very high heterogeneity (99.5%) of the reported reproductive number of these included studies. However, we did not find any evidence of publication bias (Fig 3). We used the subgroup analysis to address the heterogeneity of the reported reproductive number across selected studies characteristics. Their results are reported in Table 2 and the details results are presented in the S1-S5 Figs in S1 File. We found heterogeneity of the reported reproductive number across the countries for which the reproductive number were estimated, models and methods that were used to estimate the reproductive number, and the total number of cases that was used to estimate the reproductive number, and the type of the reproductive numbers that were estimated. For instance, the estimated reproductive number was higher in outside of China (R, 4.56, 95% CI, 2.28–9.12) than the mainland of China (R, 3.14, 95% CI, 2.40–4.09). However, in the country level, the highest reproductive number was reported for France (R, 6.32, 95% CI, 5.72–6.98) following Germany (R, 6.07, 95% CI, 5.51–6.69) and Spain (R, 5.08, 95% CI, 4.50–5.73). South Korea was the only country reported <1 reproductive number (R, 0.76, 95% CI, 0.34–1.70). The higher reproductive number reported if it was estimated by the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method (MCMC) method (R, 4.57, 95% CI, 2.68–7.78) and by the Epidemic curve model (R, 3.04, 95% CI, 2.60–3.55). The summary reproductive number was found higher if it was estimated for >3162 cases (R, 3.27, 95% CI, 2.47–4.31) than ≤3162 cases (R, 2.51, 95% CI, 1.91–3.28). Variations were also found across the type of reported reproductive numbers- the time-dependent reproductive number was found around double (R,4.42; 95% CI, 3.05–6.40) than the net reproductive number (R,1.95; 95% CI, 1.63–2.34). However, we found, through using the meta-regression, these differences were only significant across the countries of the reported reproductive number and the methods used to estimate the reproductive number.

thumbnail
Fig 2. Estimated summary reproductive number of coronavirus based on 29 studies with 32 times report.

Note: One study [36] reported estimates for four different countries: France, Germany, Italy, and Spain.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242128.g002

thumbnail
Fig 3. Funnel plot to identify publication bias including all studies used to estimate the summary reproductive number of coronavirus (Egger test p-value, 0.556).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242128.g003

thumbnail
Table 2. Sub-group analyses across study characteristics to explore the sources of heterogeneity of the estimated coronavirus’s reproductive number.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242128.t002

The results of the 13 studies that are narrative synthesized are presented in Table 3. Their findings were in line with our estimated summary reproductive number. Only a study conducted for Diamond Princes Cruise Ship, Japan reported a very high reproductive number, 14.8 for the period of 21 January to 19 February 2020 [30]. However, this estimated reproductive number was conditioned for not to be applied any preventive intervention and the infected person can mix randomly to the non-infected persons. When preventive interventions applied this number was reduced to 1.78.

Discussion

This review aimed to provide the summary reproductive number of the coronavirus based on the global level evidence. A total of 42 studies selected for this study of which 29 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Majority of the included studies were conducted in China. The estimated summary reproductive number was 2.87. We found evidence of higher heterogeneity of the reported reproductive number across different studies. The sources of heterogeneity were the country for which the reproductive number was estimated, models and methods that were used to estimate the reproductive number, and the total number of case that was used to estimate the reproductive number.

The average estimated reproductive number was 2.87; which is higher than the WHO’s estimate of 1.4 to 2.5. However, this estimate is lower than the previous summarized reproductive number of coronavirus, 3.38 estimated by Alimohamadi and Colleagues based on the 23 studies [12], 3.15 reported estimated by He and colleagues [14] based on the 7 studies, and 3.28 estimated by Liu and colleagues based on the included 12 studies [13]. Numerous measures to reduce new infections of coronavirus such as social distancing, and controlling international travels are associated with such reduction [54, 55]. However, our estimated reproductive number is still very high that could have the potential to an exponential increase in new infections. Moreover, the estimated number is still very higher than previous rounds of coronavirus like infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) if we considered the period between the when was estimation done and infections were initially detected. For instance, the reproductive numbers of SARS and MERS were reduced to 0.95 (95% CI, 0.61–1,23) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.36–1.44), respectively, after 3rd generation of the infection [56]. There are numerous reasons for such a higher reproductive number. First, biological facts of the infection rate and duration of contagion are important to explain such higher reproductive number instead of strict control measures that placed to reduce new infections [57]. For instance, a person could be infected in numerous ways, such as gets physically contacted with the infected person or through environmental transmission by respiratory droplets [58]. Moreover, coronavirus infected patients may not show symptomatic characteristics upto two weeks of infection. This pre-symptomatic stage is another vital source to increase new infections exponentially as in this period an infected person is usually confounded in the community with other people. This risk is further increased significantly for the country where population density is high [59].

This study also found evidence of the very high (99.5%) heterogeneity of the estimated reproductive number. Along with the factors described above, the study’s characteristics were found as the important sources for such higher heterogeneity. For instance, the reproductive number found higher for the countries where no restriction was applied, or restriction was applied in delayed. The forms of restrictions were to control people’s movement, to monitor personal hygiene, and to impose to wearing a mask [60, 61]. These implications act to control virus transmission from an infected to the susceptible and reduce the new infections. These also affect the average transmissibility of coronavirus within the specific population and settings [62, 63].

Estimation models, assumptions applied, and estimation processes were empirical sources of variability of the estimated reproductive number of coronavirus [64]. For instance, studies included in this analysis were followed assumption of generation time (which is followed by the gamma distribution) or serial interval (which is followed by the poison distribution) which is an important source of heterogeneity [6567]. The reason of such difference is the underlying concept: generation time refers to the average time between transmission the virus from an infected person to the non-infected person whereas serial interval refers duration between onset of symptoms in an index case to the transmission in a secondary case [65, 66, 68]. Moreover, the estimated reproductive number generated by mathematical models is dependent on numerous decisions made by the researcher such as homogeneity or heterogeneity of the population considered; use a deterministic or stochastic approach and which distributions to be used to describe the probable values of parameters [57].

We found the type of reproductive number considered was another important source of heterogeneity of the estimated reproductive number. For instance, this study found the summary of the basic reproductive number was 1.95, around half of the summary of the estimated time-dependent reproductive number (4.42). Three previous meta-analyses found the summary estimate of the basic reproductive number ranged from 3.15 and 3.38 [1214]. The sources of such heterogeneity are the underlying assumptions and the period between the initial infection and date of estimation [65, 69].

This study was first of its kind that provides an estimation of reproductive numbers based on the global literature. Moreover, we have considered the heterogeneity of the reproductive numbers estimated worldwide and explored the sources of heterogeneity across the characteristics of the selected papers. However, many other factors may explain the sources of heterogeneity of the reported reproductive number of coronavirus worldwide which was not explored in this study because of the lack of data.

Conclusion

The estimated summary reproductive number was 2.87. We found evidence of higher heterogeneity of the reproductive number reported worldwide. We found the country for which the reproductive number was estimated and the method that was used to estimate the reproductive number were significant for such heterogeneity. Our analyses indicate the possibility of a significant increase of coronavirus infections in near future. Strengthening existing preventive measures, as well as new policies and programs, are important to reduce new infections.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the authors of the paper included in this review.

References

  1. 1. Coronavirus Update (Live)—Worldometer. In: Worldometer [Internet]. [cited 15 September 2020]. Available: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
  2. 2. WHO. Novel Coronavirus(2019-nCoV) Situation Report—10. World Health Organization; 2020 Jan p. 7. Report No.: 10. Available: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200130-sitrep-10-ncov.pdf?sfvrsn=d0b2e480_2
  3. 3. Mohamed AA, Mohamed N, Mohamoud S, Zahran FE, Khattab RA, El-Damasy DA, et al. SARS-CoV-2: The Path of Prevention and Control. Infect Disord—Drug Targets. 2020;20. pmid:32433010
  4. 4. Chen N, Zhou M, Dong X, Qu J, Gong F, Han Y, et al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. The Lancet. 2020;395: 507–513. pmid:32007143
  5. 5. Chen X, Yu B. First two months of the 2019 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) epidemic in China: real-time surveillance and evaluation with a second derivative model. Glob Health Res Policy. 2020;5: 7. pmid:32158961
  6. 6. Zhou T, Liu Q, Yang Z, Liao J, Yang K, Bai W, et al. Preliminary prediction of the basic reproduction number of the Wuhan novel coronavirus 2019‐nCoV. J Evid-Based Med. 2020;13: 3–7. pmid:32048815
  7. 7. Riou J, Althaus CL. Pattern of early human-to-human transmission of Wuhan 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), December 2019 to January 2020. Eurosurveillance. 2020;25. pmid:32019669
  8. 8. Heesterbeek JAP, Roberts MG. The type-reproduction number T in models for infectious disease control. Math Biosci. 2007;206: 3–10. pmid:16529777
  9. 9. Swerdlow DL, Finelli L. Preparation for Possible Sustained Transmission of 2019 Novel Coronavirus: Lessons From Previous Epidemics. JAMA. 2020 [cited 18 Mar 2020]. pmid:32207807
  10. 10. Heffernan JM, Smith RJ, Wahl LM. Perspectives on the basic reproductive ratio. J R Soc Interface. 2005;2: 281–293. pmid:16849186
  11. 11. Woolhouse M. Quantifying Transmission. In: Baquero F, Bouza E, Gutiérrez-Fuentes JA, Coque TM, editors. Microbial Transmission. Washington, DC, USA: ASM Press; 2019. pp. 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1128/9781555819743.ch16
  12. 12. Alimohamadi Y, Taghdir M, Sepandi M. Estimate of the Basic Reproduction Number for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Prev Med Pub Health. 2020;53: 151–157. pmid:32498136
  13. 13. Liu Y, Gayle AA, Wilder-Smith A, Rocklöv J. The reproductive number of COVID-19 is higher compared to SARS coronavirus. J Travel Med. 2020;27: taaa021. pmid:32052846
  14. 14. He W, Yi GY, Zhu Y. Estimation of the basic reproduction number, average incubation time, asymptomatic infection rate, and case fatality rate for COVID‐19: Meta‐analysis and sensitivity analysis. J Med Virol. 2020; jmv.26041. pmid:32470164
  15. 15. Imai N, Cori A, Dorigatti I, Baguelin M, Donnelly CA, Riley S. Report 3: Transmissibility of 2019-nCoV. 2020; 5.
  16. 16. Sanche S, Lin YT, Xu C, Romero-Severson E, Hengartner N, Ke R. High Contagiousness and Rapid Spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26. pmid:32255761
  17. 17. Song QQ, Zhao H, Fang LQ, Liu W, Zheng C, Zhang Y. Study on assessing early epidemiological parameters of COVID-19 epidemic in China. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi Zhonghua Liuxingbingxue Zazhi. 2020;41: 461–465. pmid:32113196
  18. 18. Tang B, Wang X, Li Q, Bragazzi NL, Tang S, Xiao Y, et al. Estimation of the Transmission Risk of the 2019-nCoV and Its Implication for Public Health Interventions. J Clin Med. 2020;9: 462. pmid:32046137
  19. 19. Zhao S, Lin Q, Ran J, Musa SS, Yang G, Wang W, et al. Preliminary estimation of the basic reproduction number of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in China, from 2019 to 2020: A data-driven analysis in the early phase of the outbreak. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;92: 214–217. pmid:32007643
  20. 20. Zhao S, Musa SS, Lin Q, Ran J, Yang G, Wang W, et al. Estimating the Unreported Number of Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Cases in China in the First Half of January 2020: A Data-Driven Modelling Analysis of the Early Outbreak. J Clin Med. 2020;9: 388. pmid:32024089
  21. 21. Zhou W, Wang A, Xia F, Xiao Y, Tang S. Effects of media reporting on mitigating spread of COVID-19 in the early phase of the outbreak. Math Biosci Eng. 2020;17: 2693–2707. pmid:32233561
  22. 22. Chen T-M, Rui J, Wang Q-P, Zhao Z-Y, Cui J-A, Yin L. A mathematical model for simulating the phase-based transmissibility of a novel coronavirus. Infect Dis Poverty. 2020;9: 24. pmid:32111262
  23. 23. Li Q, Guan X, Wu P, Wang X, Zhou L, Tong Y, et al. Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2020; NEJMoa2001316. pmid:31995857
  24. 24. Majumder M, Mandl KD. Early Transmissibility Assessment of a Novel Coronavirus in Wuhan, China. SSRN Electron J. 2020 [cited 12 May 2020]. pmid:32714102
  25. 25. Shen M, Peng Z, Xiao Y, Zhang L. Modelling the epidemic trend of the 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in China. Microbiology; 2020 Jan.
  26. 26. Wan K, Chen J, Lu C, Dong L, Wu Z, Zhang L. When will the battle against novel coronavirus end in Wuhan: A SEIR modeling analysis. J Glob Health. 2020;10: 011002. pmid:32257174
  27. 27. Wu JT, Leung K, Leung GM. Nowcasting and forecasting the potential domestic and international spread of the 2019-nCoV outbreak originating in Wuhan, China: a modelling study. The Lancet. 2020;395: 689–697. pmid:32014114
  28. 28. Kuniya T. Prediction of the Epidemic Peak of Coronavirus Disease in Japan, 2020. J Clin Med. 2020;9: 789. pmid:32183172
  29. 29. Mizumoto K, Chowell G. Transmission potential of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) onboard the diamond Princess Cruises Ship, 2020. Infect Dis Model. 2020;5: 264–270. pmid:32190785
  30. 30. Rocklöv J, Sjödin H, Wilder-Smith A. COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship: estimating the epidemic potential and effectiveness of public health countermeasures. J Travel Med. 2020; taaa030. pmid:32109273
  31. 31. Zhang S, Diao M, Yu W, Pei L, Lin Z, Chen D. Estimation of the reproductive number of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and the probable outbreak size on the Diamond Princess cruise ship: A data-driven analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;93: 201–204. pmid:32097725
  32. 32. Choi S, Ki M. Estimating the reproductive number and the outbreak size of COVID-19 in Korea. Epidemiol Health. 2020;42: e2020011. pmid:32164053
  33. 33. Ki M. Epidemiologic characteristics of early cases with 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) disease in Korea. Epidemiol Health. 2020;42: e2020007. pmid:32035431
  34. 34. Shim E, Tariq A, Choi W, Lee Y, Chowell G. Transmission potential and severity of COVID-19 in South Korea. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;93: 339–344. pmid:32198088
  35. 35. D’Arienzo M, Coniglio A. Assessment of the SARS-CoV-2 basic reproduction number, R0, based on the early phase of COVID-19 outbreak in Italy. Biosaf Health. 2020; S2590053620300410. pmid:32835209
  36. 36. Yuan J, Li M, Lv G, Lu ZK. Monitoring Transmissibility and Mortality of COVID-19 in Europe. Int J Infect Dis. 2020 [cited 11 May 2020]. pmid:32234343
  37. 37. Hyafil A, Moriña D. Analysis of the impact of lockdown on the reproduction number of the SARS-Cov-2 in Spain. Gac Sanit. 2020; S0213911120300984. pmid:32571528
  38. 38. Kucharski AJ, Russell TW, Diamond C, Liu Y, Edmunds J, Funk S, et al. Early dynamics of transmission and control of COVID-19: a mathematical modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020; S1473309920301444. pmid:32171059
  39. 39. Liu T, Hu J, Xiao J, He G, Kang M, Rong Z, et al. Time-varying transmission dynamics of Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia in China. Systems Biology; 2020 Jan.
  40. 40. Read JM, Bridgen JR, Cummings DA, Ho A, Jewell CP. Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV: early estimation of epidemiological parameters and epidemic predictions. Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS); 2020 Jan.
  41. 41. Lai A, Bergna A, Acciarri C, Galli M, Zehender G. Early phylogenetic estimate of the effective reproduction number of SARS‐CoV‐2. J Med Virol. 2020;92: 675–679. pmid:32096566
  42. 42. Jung S, Akhmetzhanov AR, Hayashi K, Linton NM, Yang Y, Yuan B, et al. Real-Time Estimation of the Risk of Death from Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection: Inference Using Exported Cases. J Clin Med. 2020;9: 523. pmid:32075152
  43. 43. Iwata K, Miyakoshi C. A Simulation on Potential Secondary Spread of Novel Coronavirus in an Exported Country Using a Stochastic Epidemic SEIR Model. J Clin Med. 2020;9: 944. pmid:32235480
  44. 44. Chintalapudi N, Battineni G, Sagaro GG, Amenta F. COVID-19 outbreak reproduction number estimations and forecasting in Marche, Italy. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;96: 327–333. pmid:32437930
  45. 45. Zhang KK, Xie L, Lawless L, Zhou H, Gao G, Xue C. Characterizing the transmission and identifying the control strategy for COVID-19 through epidemiological modeling. Epidemiology; 2020 Feb.
  46. 46. Shao N, Cheng J, Chen W. The reproductive number of COVID-19 based on estimate of a statistical time delay dynamical system. Epidemiology; 2020 Feb.
  47. 47. Najafi F, Izadi N, Hashemi-Nazari S-S, Khosravi-Shadmani F, Nikbakht R, Shakiba E. Serial interval and time-varying reproduction number estimation for COVID-19 in western Iran. New Microbes New Infect. 2020;36: 100715. pmid:32566233
  48. 48. Al Wahaibi A, Al Manji A, Al Maani A, Al Rawahi B, Al Harthy K, Alyaquobi F, et al. COVID-19 epidemic monitoring after non-pharmaceutical interventions: The use of time-varying reproduction number in a country with a large migrant population. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;99: 466–472. pmid:32829052
  49. 49. Al-Raeei M. The basic reproduction number of the new coronavirus pandemic with mortality for India, the Syrian Arab Republic, the United States, Yemen, China, France, Nigeria and Russia with different rate of cases. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health. 2020; S221339842030186X. pmid:32844133
  50. 50. Sarkar K, Khajanchi S, Nieto JJ. Modeling and forecasting the COVID-19 pandemic in India. Chaos Solitons Fractals. 2020;139: 110049. pmid:32834603
  51. 51. Aldila D, Khoshnaw SHA, Safitri E, Anwar YR, Bakry ARQ, Samiadji BM, et al. A mathematical study on the spread of COVID-19 considering social distancing and rapid assessment: The case of Jakarta, Indonesia. Chaos Solitons Fractals. 2020;139: 110042. pmid:32834600
  52. 52. Bagal DK, Rath A, Barua A, Patnaik D. Estimating the parameters of susceptible-infected-recovered model of COVID-19 cases in India during lockdown periods. Chaos Solitons Fractals. 2020;140: 110154. pmid:32834642
  53. 53. Ullah S, Khan MA. Modeling the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the dynamics of novel coronavirus with optimal control analysis with a case study. Chaos Solitons Fractals. 2020;139: 110075. pmid:32834618
  54. 54. Zhong P, Guo S, Chen T. Correlation between travellers departing from Wuhan before the Spring Festival and subsequent spread of COVID-19 to all provinces in China. J Travel Med. 2020;27. pmid:32181483
  55. 55. Chen H, Xu W, Paris C, Reeson A, Li X. Social distance and SARS memory: impact on the public awareness of 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS); 2020 Mar.
  56. 56. Chowell G, Abdirizak F, Lee S, Lee J, Jung E, Nishiura H, et al. Transmission characteristics of MERS and SARS in the healthcare setting: a comparative study. BMC Med. 2015;13: 1–12. pmid:25563062
  57. 57. Delamater PL, Street EJ, Leslie TF, Yang YT, Jacobsen KH. Complexity of the Basic Reproduction Number (R0). Emerg Infect Dis. 2019;25: 1–4. pmid:30560777
  58. 58. Jin Y-H, Cai L, Cheng Z-S, Cheng H, Deng T, Fan Y-P, et al. A rapid advice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infected pneumonia (standard version). Mil Med Res. 2020;7: 4. pmid:32029004
  59. 59. Guerra FM, Bolotin S, Lim G, Heffernan J, Deeks SL, Li Y, et al. The basic reproduction number (R 0) of measles: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17: e420–e428. pmid:28757186
  60. 60. Adhikari SP, Meng S, Wu Y-J, Mao Y-P, Ye R-X, Wang Q-Z, et al. Epidemiology, causes, clinical manifestation and diagnosis, prevention and control of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) during the early outbreak period: a scoping review. Infect Dis Poverty. 2020;9. pmid:32183901
  61. 61. Cowling BJ, Ali ST, Ng TWY, Tsang TK, Li JCM, Fong MW, et al. Impact assessment of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 and influenza in Hong Kong: an observational study. Epidemiology; 2020 Mar.
  62. 62. Lai S, Ruktanonchai NW, Zhou L, Prosper O, Luo W, Floyd JR, et al. Effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions for containing the COVID-19 outbreak in China. Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS); 2020 Mar. pmid:32511601
  63. 63. Imai N, Gaythorpe KAM, Abbott S, Bhatia S, van Elsland S, Prem K, et al. Adoption and impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions for COVID-19. Wellcome Open Res. 2020;5: 59. pmid:32529040
  64. 64. Huedo-Medina TB, Sánchez-Meca J, Marín-Martínez F, Botella J. Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychol Methods. 2006;11: 193–206. pmid:16784338
  65. 65. Wallinga J, Lipsitch M. How generation intervals shape the relationship between growth rates and reproductive numbers. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2007;274: 599–604. pmid:17476782
  66. 66. Svensson Å. A note on generation times in epidemic models. Math Biosci. 2007;208: 300–311. pmid:17174352
  67. 67. Vink MA, Bootsma MCJ, Wallinga J. Serial Intervals of Respiratory Infectious Diseases: A Systematic Review and Analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;180: 865–875. pmid:25294601
  68. 68. Cowling BJ, Fang VJ, Riley S, Peiris JSM, Leung GM. Estimation of the serial interval of influenza. Epidemiol Camb Mass. 2009;20: 344–347. pmid:19279492
  69. 69. Vynnycky E, White RG. An introduction to infectious disease modelling. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwp394 pmid:20007674