Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35138250›Full record

ArticleeLife2022

Inference of the SARS-CoV-2 generation time using UK household data.

William S Hart, Sam Abbott, Akira Endo, Joel Hellewell, Elizabeth Miller, Nick Andrews, Philip K Maini, Sebastian Funk, Robin N Thompson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Uncovering heterogeneous intercommunity disease transmission from neutral allele frequency time series.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

William S HartMathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2504-6860
Sam AbbottCentre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Akira EndoCentre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6377-7296
Joel HellewellCentre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Elizabeth MillerDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1884-0097
Nick AndrewsData and Analytical Sciences, UK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Philip K MainiMathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0146-9164
Sebastian Funk *Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2842-3406
Robin N Thompson *Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8545-5212

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The distribution of the generation time (the interval between individuals becoming infected and transmitting the virus) characterises changes in the transmission risk during SARS-CoV-2 infections. Inferring the generation time distribution is essential to plan and assess public health measures. We previously developed a mechanistic approach for estimating the generation time, which provided an improved fit to data from the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic (December 2019-March 2020) compared to existing models (Hart et al., 2021). However, few estimates of the generation time exist based on data from later in the pandemic. Here, using data from a household study conducted from March to November 2020 in the UK, we provide updated estimates of the generation time. We considered both a commonly used approach in which the transmission risk is assumed to be independent of when symptoms develop, and our mechanistic model in which transmission and symptoms are linked explicitly. Assuming independent transmission and symptoms, we estimated a mean generation time (4.2 days, 95% credible interval 3.3-5.3 days) similar to previous estimates from other countries, but with a higher standard deviation (4.9 days, 3.0-8.3 days). Using our mechanistic approach, we estimated a longer mean generation time (5.9 days, 5.2-7.0 days) and a similar standard deviation (4.8 days, 4.0-6.3 days). As well as estimating the generation time using data from the entire study period, we also considered whether the generation time varied temporally. Both models suggest a shorter mean generation time in September-November 2020 compared to earlier months. Since the SARS-CoV-2 generation time appears to be changing, further data collection and analysis is necessary to continue to monitor ongoing transmission and inform future public health policy decisions.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2HumansPandemicsPublic HealthUnited KingdomCOVID-19epidemiologygeneration intervalgeneration timeglobal healthmathematical modellingpresymptomatic transmissionSARS-CoV-2viruses

Identifiers

PMID35138250
PMCPMC8967386

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.