Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 347

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus: quantification of the extent of the epidemic, surveillance biases, and transmissibility

Open access
Cauchemez, Simon, Fraser, Christophe, Van Kerkhove, Maria D, Donnelly, Christl A, Riley, Steven, Rambaut, Andrew, Enouf, Vincent, van der Werf, Sylvie, Ferguson, Neil M·2014·The Lancet Infectious Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The novel Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) had, as of Aug 8, 2013, caused 111 virologically confirmed or probable human cases of infection worldwide. We analysed epidemiological and genetic data to assess the extent of human infection, the performance of case detection, and the transmission potential of MERS-CoV with and without control measures. METHODS: We assembled a comprehensive database of all confirmed and probable cases from public sources and estimated the incubation period and generation time from case cluster data. Using data of numbers of visitors to the Middle East and their duration of stay, we estimated the number of symptomatic cases in the Middle East. We did independent analyses, looking at the growth in incident clusters, the growth in viral population, the reproduction number of cluster index cases, and cluster sizes to characterise the dynamical properties of the epidemic and the transmission scenario. FINDINGS: The estimated number of symptomatic cases up to Aug 8, 2013, is 940 (95% CI 290-2200), indicating that at least 62% of human symptomatic cases have not been detected. We find that the case-fatality ratio of primary cases detected via routine surveillance (74%; 95% CI 49-91) is biased upwards because of detection bias; the case-fatality ratio of secondary cases was 20% (7-42). Detection of milder cases (or clinical management) seemed to have improved in recent months. Analysis of human clusters indicated that chains of transmission were not self-sustaining when infection control was implemented, but that R in the absence of controls was in the range 0·8-1·3. Three independent data sources provide evidence that R cannot be much above 1, with an upper bound of 1·2-1·5. INTERPRETATION: By showing that a slowly growing epidemic is underway either in human beings or in an animal reservoir, quantification of uncertainty in transmissibility estimates, and provision of the first estimates of the scale of the epidemic and extent of case detection biases, we provide valuable information for more informed risk assessment. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, EU FP7, and National Institute of General Medical Sciences.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1473-3099(13)70304-9

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Cauchemez, S., Fraser, C., Van Kerkhove, M. D., Donnelly, C. A., Riley, S., Rambaut, A., Enouf, V., van der Werf, S., & Ferguson, N. M.
Venue
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-01
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
50-56
ISSN
1473-3099 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1968393246
Cited by
347
References
0
FWCI
25.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.