Inferred duration of infectious period of SARS-CoV-2: rapid scoping review and analysis of available evidence for asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 cases
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 5 August 2020
- Vol. 10 (8), e039856
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039856
Abstract
Objectives Our objective was to review the literature on the inferred duration of the infectious period of COVID-19, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, and provide an overview of the variation depending on the methodological approach. Design Rapid scoping review. Literature review with fixed search terms, up to 1 April 2020. Central tendency and variation of the parameter estimates for infectious period in (A) asymptomatic and (B) symptomatic cases from (1) virological studies (repeated testing), (2) tracing studies and (3) modelling studies were gathered. Narrative review of viral dynamics. Information sources Search strategies developed and the following searched: PubMed, Google Scholar, MedRxiv and BioRxiv. Additionally, the Health Information Quality Authority (Ireland) viral load synthesis was used, which screened literature from PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, NHS evidence, Cochrane, medRxiv and bioRxiv, and HRB open databases. Results There was substantial variation in the estimates, and how infectious period was inferred. One study provided approximate median infectious period for asymptomatic cases of 6.5–9.5 days. Median presymptomatic infectious period across studies varied over Conclusions There are limitations of inferring infectiousness from repeated diagnosis, viral loads and viral replication data alone and also potential patient recall bias relevant to estimating exposure and symptom onset times. Despite this, available data provide a preliminary evidence base to inform models of central tendency for key parameters and variation for exploring parameter space and sensitivity analysis.Keywords
This publication has 83 references indexed in Scilit:
- First Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus in the United StatesThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2020
- Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, ChinaThe Lancet, 2020
- The GenTree Dendroecological Collection, tree-ring and wood density data from seven tree species across EuropeScientific Data, 2020
- Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of InterventionsEmergencias, 2019
- Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of InterventionsPublished by Wiley ,2019
- Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile rangeBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2014
- Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care ProgramJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2011
- Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta‐regressionStatistics in Medicine, 2004
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- A comparison of statistical methods for meta‐analysisStatistics in Medicine, 2001