ArticleBMJ public health2024
Contact patterns between index patients and their close contacts and assessing risk for COVID-19 transmission during different exposure time windows: a large retrospective observational study of 450 770 close contacts in Shanghai.
Article in BMJ public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
abstractIntroduction: To characterise age-mixing patterns among index cases and contacts of COVID-19, and explore when patients are most infectious during the disease process. Methods: This study examined all initial 90 885 confirmed index cases in Shanghai and their 450 770 close contacts. A generalised additive mixed model was used to analyse the associations of the number of close contacts with different demographic and clinical characteristics. The effect of different exposure time windows on the infection of close contacts was evaluated using a modified mixed-effects Poisson regression. Results: Analysis of contacts indicated that 82 467 (18.29%; 95% CI 18.17%, 18.42%) were second-generation cases. Our result indicated the q-index was 0.300 (95% CI 0.298, 0.302) for overall contact matrix, and that assortativity was greatest for students (q-index=0.377; 95% CI 0.357, 0.396) and weakest for people working age not in the labour force (q-index=0.246; 95% CI 0.240, 0.252). The number of contacts was 4.96 individuals per index case (95% CI 4.86, 5.06). Contacts had a higher risk if they were exposed from 1 day before to 3 days after the onset of symptoms in the index patient, with a maximum at day 0 (adjusted relative risk (aRR)=1.52; 95% CI 1.30, 1.76). Contacts exposed from 3 days before to 3 days after an asymptomatic index case had a positive reverse transcriptase-PCR (RT-PCR) result had a higher risk, with a maximum on day 0 (aRR=1.48; 95% CI 1.37, 1.59). Conclusions: The greatest assortativity was for students and weakest for people working age not in the labour force. Contact in the household was a significant contributor to the infection of close contacts. Contact tracing should focus on individuals who had contact soon before or soon after the onset of symptoms (or positive RT-PCR test) in the index case.
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.