SynthesisPloS one2020
Reproductive number of coronavirus: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on global level evidence.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 114 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
114 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Foot-and-mouth disease reproduction number: a scoping review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Pooled it
- Reliability of Early Estimates of the Basic Reproduction Number of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- An integrated framework for early detection and transmissibility assessment of emerging variants in wastewater.International journal of hygiene and environmental health · 2026Article
- Identifying the optimal rapid antigen test for screening and determining the end of isolation: A modeling study.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Application of the type and target reproduction numbers to the evaluation of the influence of each prefecture in Japan on the disease spread.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2026Article
- Modeling and Simulation of the Role of Mass Testing in Controlling COVID-19.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2026Article
- PoMA-10: a dual-action antiviral disrupting SARS-CoV-2 Spike-ACE2 interaction and protecting lung tissue.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Human mobility and sewage data correlate with COVID-19 epidemic evolution in a 3-year surveillance of the metropolitan area of Bologna.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Identifying COVID-19 peaks using early warning signals.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- The effect of COVID-19 vaccination on change in contact and implications for transmission.Epidemics · 2025Article
- Eco-evolutionary dynamics of pathogen immune-escape: deriving a population-level phylodynamic curve.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2025Article
- A modeling study to define guidelines for antigen screening in schools and workplaces to mitigate COVID-19 outbreaks.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Cognitively-plausible reinforcement learning in epidemiological agent-based simulations.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2025Article
- COVID-19 Reproduction Numbers and Long COVID Prevalences in California State Prisons.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- A novel comparison framework for epidemiological strategies applied to age-based restrictions versus horizontal lockdowns.Infectious Disease Modelling · 2024Article
- Activities of psychiatrists in specialized coronavirus disease 2019 wards at Juntendo Hospital.PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2024Review
- A novel, scenario-based approach to comparing non-pharmaceutical intervention strategies across nations.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2024Article
- Global disparities in COVID-19 vaccine booster dose (VBD) acceptance and hesitancy: An updated narrative review.Vaccine: X · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
54 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 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.
methodsA 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).
resultsTotal 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.
conclusionThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.