The transmission modes and sources of COVID-19: A systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Rahman HS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7484735 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to identify the potential and definite sources of transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsDue to time constraints and the acute nature of the pandemic, we searched only PubMed/Medline from inception until January 28, 2021. We analyzed the level of evidence and risk of bias in each category and made suggestions accordingly.ResultsThe virus was traced from its potential origin via possible ways of transmission to the last host. Symptomatic human-to-human transmission remains the driver of the epidemic, but asymptomatic transmission can potentially contribute in a substantial manner. Feces and fomites have both been found to contain viable virus; even though transmission through these routes has not been documented, their contribution cannot be ruled out. Finally, transmission from pregnant women to their children has been found to be low (up to 3%).ConclusionEven though robust outcomes cannot be easily assessed, medical personnel must maintain awareness of the main routes of transmission (via droplets and aerosols from even asymptomatic patients). This is the first attempt to systematically review the existing knowledge to produce a paper with a potentially significant clinical impact.
| S-EPMC8102883 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Successful detection of SARS-COV-2 in wastewater suggests the potential utility of wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) for COVID-19 community surveillance. This systematic review aims to assess the performance of wastewater surveillance as early warning system of COVID-19 community transmission. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Medline, Embase and the WBE Consortium Registry according to PRISMA guidelines for relevant articles published until 31st July 2021. Relevant data were extracted and summarized. Quality of each paper was assessed using an assessment tool adapted from Bilotta et al.'s tool for environmental science. Of 763 studies identified, 92 studies distributed across 34 countries were shortlisted for qualitative synthesis. A total of 26,197 samples were collected between January 2020 and May 2021 from various locations serving population ranging from 321 to 11,400,000 inhabitants. Overall sample positivity was moderate at 29.2% in all examined settings with the spike (S) gene having maximum rate of positive detections and nucleocapsid (N) gene being the most targeted. Wastewater signals preceded confirmed cases by up to 63 days, with 13 studies reporting sample positivity before the first cases were detected in the community. At least 50 studies reported an association of viral load with community cases. While wastewater surveillance cannot replace large-scale diagnostic testing, it can complement clinical surveillance by providing early signs of potential transmission for more active public health responses. However, more studies using standardized and validated methods are required along with risk analysis and modelling to understand the dynamics of viral outbreaks.
| S-EPMC8423771 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7446647 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are uncertainties about mitigating strategies for swimming-related activities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is an opportunity to learn from the experience of previous re-openings to better plan the future one. Our objectives are to systematically review the evidence on (1) the association between engaging in swimming-related activities and COVID-19 transmission; and (2) the effects of strategies for preventing COVID-19 transmission during swimming-related activities.MethodsWe conducted a rapid systematic review. We searched in the L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19. The searches covered the period from the inception date of each database until April 19, 2021. We included non-randomized studies for the review on association of COVID-19 transmission and swimming-related activities. We included guidance documents reporting on the strategies for prevention of COVID-19 transmission during swimming-related activities. We also included studies on the efficacy and safety of the strategies. Teams of two reviewers independently assessed article eligibility. For the guidance documents, a single reviewer assessed the eligibility and a second reviewer verified the judgement. Teams of two reviewers extracted data independently. We summarized the findings of included studies narratively. We synthesized information from guidance documents according to the identified topics and subtopics, and presented them in tabular and narrative formats.ResultsWe identified three studies providing very low certainty evidence for the association between engaging in swimming-related activities and COVID-19 transmission. The analysis of 50 eligible guidance documents identified 11 topics: ensuring social distancing, ensuring personal hygiene, using personal protective equipment, eating and drinking, maintaining the pool, managing frequently touched surfaces, ventilation of indoor spaces, screening and management of sickness, delivering first aid, raising awareness, and vaccination. One study assessing the efficacy of strategies to prevent COVID-19 transmission did not find an association between compliance with precautionary restrictions and COVID-19 transmission.ConclusionsThere are major gaps in the research evidence of relevance to swimming-related activities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the synthesis of the identified strategies from guidance documents can inform public health management strategies for swimming-related activities, particularly in future re-opening plans.
| S-EPMC8553516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Human psittacosis, caused by Chlamydia (C.) psittaci, is likely underdiagnosed and underreported, since tests for C. psittaci are often not included in routine microbiological diagnostics. Source tracing traditionally focuses on psittacine pet birds, but recently other animal species have been gaining more attention as possible sources for human psittacosis. This review aims to provide an overview of all suspected animal sources of human psittacosis cases reported in the international literature. In addition, for each animal species the strength of evidence for zoonotic transmission was estimated. METHODS:A systematic literature search was conducted using four databases (Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and Proquest). Articles were included when there was mention of at least one human case of psittacosis and a possible animal source. Investigators independently extracted data from the included articles and estimated strength of evidence for zoonotic transmission, based on a self-developed scoring system taking into account number of human cases, epidemiological evidence and laboratory test results in human, animals, and the environment. RESULTS:Eighty articles were included, which provided information on 136 different situations of possible zoonotic transmission. The maximum score for zoonotic transmission was highest for turkeys, followed by ducks, owls, and the category 'other poultry'. Articles reporting about zoonotic transmission from unspecified birds, psittaciformes and columbiformes provided a relatively low strength of evidence. A genotypical match between human and animal samples was reported twenty-eight times, including transmission from chickens, turkeys, guinea fowl, peafowl, pigeons, ducks, geese, songbirds, parrot-like birds and owls. CONCLUSIONS:Strong evidence exists for zoonotic transmission from turkeys, chickens and ducks, in addition to the more traditionally reported parrot-like animal sources. Based on our scoring system, the evidence was generally stronger for poultry than for parrot-like birds. Psittaciformes should not be disregarded as an important source of human psittacosis, still clinicians and public health officials should include poultry and birds species other than parrots in medical history and source tracing.
| S-EPMC7057575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Among several potential transmission sources in the spreading of the COVID-19, dental services have received a high volume of attention. Several reports, papers, guidelines, and suggestions have been released on how this infection could be transmitted through dental services and what should be done. This study aimed to review the guidelines in order to develop a practical feasibility protocol for the re-opening of dental clinics and the reorientation of dental services. METHODS:This study systematically reviewed the published literature and the guidelines of international health care institutions on dentistry and COVID-19. We searched Pubmed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS electronic databases using MESH terms. The recommendations identified were tested with a convenience sample of experienced practitioners, and a practical step-by-step protocol is presented in this paper. RESULTS:To the date this paper was drafted, 38 articles were found, of which 9 satisfied our inclusion criteria. As all the nine studies were proposed in a general consensus, any elective non-emergency dental care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19 should be postponed for at least 2 weeks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Only urgent treatment of dental diseases can be performed during the COVID-19 outbreak taking into consideration pharmacological management as the first line and contagion-reduced minimally invasive emergency treatment as the secondary and final management. CONCLUSIONS:While the currently available evidence has not demonstrated a clear and direct relationship between dental treatment or surgery and the possibility of the transmission of COVID-19, there is clearly the potential for transmission. Therefore, following the protective protocols in the COVID-19 crisis is of utmost importance in a dental setting.
| S-EPMC7543039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has inflicted major economic and health burdens across the world. On the other hand, the potential airborne transmission of SARS-COV-2 via air can deeply undermine the effectiveness of countermeasures against spreading the disease. Therefore, there is an intense focus to look for ways to mitigate the COVID-19 spread within various indoor settings. This work systematically reviewed articles regarding airborne transmission of SARS-COV2 in various indoor settings since the onset of the pandemic. The systematic search was performed in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases and has returned 19 original articles carefully screened with regard to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results showed that the facilities, such as dormitories and classrooms, received the most attention followed by office buildings, healthcare facilities, residential buildings, and other potential enclosed spaces such as a metro wagon. Besides, the majority of the studies were conducted experimentally while other studies were done using computer simulations. United States (n = 5), Spain (n = 4) and China (n = 3) were the top three countries based on the number of performed research. Ventilation rate was the most influential parameter in controlling the infection spread. CO2 was the primary reference for viral spread in the buildings. The use of natural ventilation or a combination of mechanical and natural ventilations was found to be highly effective in the studies. The current work helps in furthering research on effective interventions to improve indoor air quality and control the spread of COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40201-023-00847-0.
| S-EPMC9968468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe risk of infectious disease transmission in public washrooms causes concern particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review aims to assess the risk of transmission of viral or bacterial infections through inhalation, surface contact, and faecal-oral routes in public washrooms in healthcare and non-healthcare environments.MethodsWe systematically reviewed environmental sampling, laboratory, and epidemiological studies on viral and bacterial infection transmission in washrooms using PubMed and Scopus. The review focused on indoor, publicly accessible washrooms.ResultsThirty-eight studies from 13 countries were identified, including 14 studies carried out in healthcare settings, 10 in laboratories or experimental chambers, and 14 studies in restaurants, workplaces, commercial and academic environments. Thirty-three studies involved surface sampling, 15 air sampling, 8 water sampling, and 5 studies were risk assessments or outbreak investigations. Infectious disease transmission was studied in relation with: (a) toilets with flushing mechanisms; (b) hand drying systems; and (c) water taps, sinks and drains. A wide range of enteric, skin and soil bacteria and enteric and respiratory viruses were identified in public washrooms, potentially posing a risk of infection transmission. Studies on COVID-19 transmission only examined washroom contamination in healthcare settings.ConclusionOpen-lid toilet flushing, ineffective handwashing or hand drying, substandard or infrequent surface cleaning, blocked drains, and uncovered rubbish bins can result in widespread bacterial and/or viral contamination in washrooms. However, only a few cases of infectious diseases mostly related to faecal-oral transmission originating from washrooms in restaurants were reported. Although there is a risk of microbial aerosolisation from toilet flushing and the use of hand drying systems, we found no evidence of airborne transmission of enteric or respiratory pathogens, including COVID-19, in public washrooms. Appropriate hand hygiene, surface cleaning and disinfection, and washroom maintenance and ventilation are likely to minimise the risk of infectious disease transmission.
| S-EPMC8390098 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have caused substantial public health burdens and global health threats. Understanding the superspreading potentials of these viruses are important for characterizing transmission patterns and informing strategic decision-making in disease control. This systematic review aimed to summarize the existing evidence on superspreading features and to compare the heterogeneity in transmission within and among various betacoronavirus epidemics of SARS, MERS and COVID-19.MethodsPubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases were extensively searched for original studies on the transmission heterogeneity of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 published in English between January 1, 2003, and February 10, 2021. After screening the articles, we extracted data pertaining to the estimated dispersion parameter (k) which has been a commonly-used measurement for superspreading potential.FindingsWe included a total of 60 estimates of transmission heterogeneity from 26 studies on outbreaks in 22 regions. The majority (90%) of the k estimates were small, with values less than 1, indicating an over-dispersed transmission pattern. The point estimates of k for SARS and MERS ranged from 0.12 to 0.20 and from 0.06 to 2.94, respectively. Among 45 estimates of individual-level transmission heterogeneity for COVID-19 from 17 articles, 91% were derived from Asian regions. The point estimates of k for COVID-19 ranged between 0.1 and 5.0.ConclusionsWe detected a substantial over-dispersed transmission pattern in all three coronaviruses, while the k estimates varied by differences in study design and public health capacity. Our findings suggested that even with a reduced R value, the epidemic still has a high resurgence potential due to transmission heterogeneity.
| S-EPMC8409018 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo carry out a systematic review of the available studies on COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) in neonates seen globally since the onset of the COVID-19 global pandemic in 2020. The paper also describes a premature baby with reverse transcription (RT)-PCR-positive COVID-19 seen at the Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK.DesignWe conducted a multifaceted search of the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Medline and PubMed from 1 December 2019 to 12 May 2020 to harvest articles from medical journals and publications reporting cases of COVID-19 in neonates from anywhere in the world. Additional searches were also done so as not to miss any important publications. Write-up was in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, the protocol for the review was registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), and risk of bias was analysed with the Newcastle-Ottawa tool. Additionally, the preterm neonate with COVID-19 from our hospital is also reported.ResultsThe systematic review has revealed eight studies where neonates have been described to have confirmed COVID-19, with low risk of bias. Of the 10 reported cases elsewhere, only three are likely to be vertically transmitted, while seven occurred in the postperinatal period and are likely to have been postnatally acquired. All neonates had a mild course, recovered fully and were negative on retesting. Our case of COVID-19 in a 32-week premature baby from the UK was delivered by emergency caesarean section, with the mother wearing a face mask and the family having no contact with the neonate, suggesting vertical transmission. On day 33, the neonate was asymptomatic but was still RT-PCR-positive on nasopharyngeal airway swab.ConclusionsNeonatal infection is uncommon, with only two previously reported cases likely to be of vertical transmission. The case we report is still RT-PCR-positive on day 28 and is asymptomatic. Ongoing research is needed to ascertain the epidemiology of COVID-19 in neonates.
| S-EPMC7252972 | biostudies-literature