Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32942988›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Social network analysis methods for exploring SARS-CoV-2 contact tracing data.

Karikalan Nagarajan, Malaisamy Muniyandi, Bharathidasan Palani, Senthil Sellappan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Epidemic Diffusion Network of Spain: A Mobility Model to Characterize the Transmission Routes of Disease.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Digital Health Care Industry Ecosystem: Network Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Karikalan NagarajanDepartment of Health Economics, Indian Council of Medical Research- National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis, Chennai, 600031, India. karikalan.n@nirt.res.in.ORCID 0000-0001-7462-7066
Malaisamy MuniyandiDepartment of Health Economics, Indian Council of Medical Research- National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis, Chennai, 600031, India.
Bharathidasan PalaniDepartment of Health Economics, Indian Council of Medical Research- National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis, Chennai, 600031, India.
Senthil SellappanDepartment of Health Economics, Indian Council of Medical Research- National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis, Chennai, 600031, India.
Indian Council of Medical Research · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContact tracing data of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is used to estimate basic epidemiological parameters. Contact tracing data could also be potentially used for assessing the heterogeneity of transmission at the individual patient level. Characterization of individuals based on different levels of infectiousness could better inform the contact tracing interventions at field levels.

methodsStandard social network analysis methods used for exploring infectious disease transmission dynamics was employed to analyze contact tracing data of 1959 diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 patients from a large state of India. Relational network data set with diagnosed patients as "nodes" and their epidemiological contact as "edges" was created. Directed network perspective was utilized in which directionality of infection emanated from a "source patient" towards a "target patient". Network measures of " degree centrality" and "betweenness centrality" were calculated to identify influential patients in the transmission of infection. Components analysis was conducted to identify patients connected as sub- groups. Descriptive statistics was used to summarise network measures and percentile ranks were used to categorize influencers.

resultsOut-degree centrality measures identified that of the total 1959 patients, 11.27% (221) patients have acted as a source of infection to 40.19% (787) other patients. Among these source patients, 0.65% (12) patients had a higher out-degree centrality (> = 10) and have collectively infected 37.61% (296 of 787), secondary patients. Betweenness centrality measures highlighted that 7.50% (93) patients had a non-zero betweenness (range 0.5 to 135) and thus have bridged the transmission between other patients. Network component analysis identified nineteen connected components comprising of influential patient's which have overall accounted for 26.95% of total patients (1959) and 68.74% of epidemiological contacts in the network.

conclusionsSocial network analysis method for SARS-CoV-2 contact tracing data would be of use in measuring individual patient level variations in disease transmission. The network metrics identified individual patients and patient components who have disproportionately contributed to transmission. The network measures and graphical tools could complement the existing contact tracing indicators and could help improve the contact tracing activities.

Indexed as

PandemicsSocial NetworkingAdultBetacoronavirusContact TracingCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19FemaleHumansIndiaMaleModels, TheoreticalPneumonia, ViralSARS-CoV-2Young AdultBetweenness centralityComponentsContact tracingDegree centralityHeterogeneityIndiaInfectious diseasesPatientsSARS-CoV-2Social networks

Identifiers

PMID32942988
PMCPMC7494745
OpenAlexW3085807699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.