Reliability of Early Estimates of the Basic Reproduction Number of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Bibha Dhungel (), Md. Shafiur Rahman, Md. Mahfuzur Rahman, Aliza K. C. Bhandari, Phuong Mai Le, Nushrat Alam Biva and Stuart Gilmour
Additional contact information
Bibha Dhungel: Graduate School of Public Health, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
Md. Shafiur Rahman: Research Centre for Child Mental Development, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu 431-3192, Japan
Md. Mahfuzur Rahman: Global Public Health Research Foundation, Dhaka 1230, Bangladesh
Aliza K. C. Bhandari: Graduate School of Public Health, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
Phuong Mai Le: Graduate School of Public Health, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
Nushrat Alam Biva: Graduate School of Public Health, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
Stuart Gilmour: Graduate School of Public Health, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo 104-0045, Japan

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 18, 1-14

Abstract: Objective: This systematic review estimated the pooled R 0 for early COVID-19 outbreaks and identified the impact of study-related factors such as methods, study location and study period on the estimated R 0 . Methods: We searched electronic databases for human studies published in English between 1 December 2019 and 30 September 2020 with no restriction on country/region. Two investigators independently performed the data extraction of the studies selected for inclusion during full-text screening. The primary outcome, R 0 , was analysed by random-effects meta-analysis using the restricted maximum likelihood method. Results: We identified 26,425 studies through our search and included 151 articles in the systematic review, among which 81 were included in the meta-analysis. The estimates of R 0 from studies included in the meta-analysis ranged from 0.4 to 12.58. The pooled R 0 for COVID-19 was estimated to be 2.66 (95% CI, 2.41–2.94). The results showed heterogeneity among studies and strong evidence of a small-study effect. Conclusions: The high heterogeneity in studies makes the use of the R 0 for basic epidemic planning difficult and presents a huge problem for risk assessment and data synthesis. Consensus on the use of R 0 for outbreak assessment is needed, and its use for assessing epidemic risk is not recommended.

Keywords: basic reproduction number; basic reproductive number; R 0; COVID-19; coronavirus; reliability; pandemic; infectious disease (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/18/11613/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/18/11613/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:18:p:11613-:d:915500

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().