Cited by 260COVID-19 epidemiological studiesSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models

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

Open access
Billah, Md. Arif, Miah, Md. Mamun, Khan, Md. Nuruzzaman·2020·PLOS ONE

Published version of a preprint

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.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0242128

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The latest estimates on COVID-19 pointed out a range of 60-75% immune individuals necessary to halt forward transmission and community spread.

    “The latest estimates on COVID-19, pointed out a range of 60–75% immune individuals that would be necessary to halt the forward transmission of the virus and community spread of the virus [87,88,89].”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 82 · Cited by 260

Authors
Billah, M. A., Miah, M. M., & Khan, M. N.
Affiliations
  • Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (MY)
  • Khulna University of Engineering and Technology (BD)
  • Jatiya Kabi Kazi Nazrul Islam University (BD)
Corresponding author
Khan, Md. Nuruzzaman
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2020-11-11
Volume
15
Issue
11
Pages
e0242128
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3099665160
Cited by
260
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 88 · 2020: 4
FWCI
1.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Greater South Information System
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Mathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models
Keywords
SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 pandemic, reproduction number, transmission dynamics, Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation, heterogeneity of estimates, epidemic forecasting, mental health
MeSH terms
Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Computer Simulation, Disease Outbreaks, Humans, Models, Biological, Pneumonia, Viral, Databases, Factual, Coronavirus Infections, Pandemics

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