Dataset Information

Observations of the global epidemiology of COVID-19 from the prepandemic period using web-based surveillance: a cross-sectional analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background Scant data are available about global patterns of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spread and global epidemiology of early confirmed cases of COVID-19 outside mainland China. We describe the global spread of SARS-CoV-2 and characteristics of COVID-19 cases and clusters before the characterisation of COVID-19 as a pandemic.

Methods

Cases of COVID-19 reported between Dec 31, 2019, and March 10, 2020 (ie, the prepandemic period), were identified daily from official websites, press releases, press conference transcripts, and social media feeds of national ministries of health or other government agencies. Case characteristics, travel history, and exposures to other cases were abstracted. Countries with at least one case were classified as affected. Early cases were defined as those among the first 100 cases reported from each country. Later cases were defined as those after the first 100 cases. We analysed reported travel to affected countries among the first case reported from each country outside mainland China, demographic and exposure characteristics among cases with age or sex information, and cluster frequencies and sizes by transmission settings.

Findings

Among the first case reported from each of 99 affected countries outside of mainland China, 75 (76%) had recent travel to affected countries; 60 (61%) had travelled to China, Italy, or Iran. Among 1200 cases with age or sex information, 874 (73%) were early cases. Among 762 early cases with age information, the median age was 51 years (IQR 35-63); 25 (3%) of 762 early cases occurred in children younger than 18 years. Overall, 21 (2%) of 1200 cases were in health-care workers and none were in pregnant women. 101 clusters were identified, of which the most commonly identified transmission setting was households (76 [75%]; mean 2·6 cases per cluster [range 2-7]), followed by non-health-care occupational settings (14 [14%]; mean 4·3 cases per cluster [2-14]), and community gatherings (11 [11%]; mean 14·2 cases per cluster [4-36]).

Interpretation

Cases with travel links to China, Italy, or Iran accounted for almost two-thirds of the first reported COVID-19 cases from affected countries. Among cases with age information available, most were among adults aged 18 years and older. Although there were many clusters of household transmission among early cases, clusters in occupational or community settings tended to be larger, supporting a possible role for physical distancing to slow the progression of SARS-CoV-2 spread.

Funding

None.

SUBMITTER: Dawood FS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7836788 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Observations of the global epidemiology of COVID-19 from the prepandemic period using web-based surveillance: a cross-sectional analysis.

Dawood Fatimah S FS Ricks Philip P Njie Gibril J GJ Daugherty Michael M Davis William W Fuller James A JA Winstead Alison A McCarron Margaret M Scott Lia C LC Chen Diana D Blain Amy E AE Moolenaar Ron R Li Chaoyang C Popoola Adebola A Jones Cynthia C Anantharam Puneet P Olson Natalie N Marston Barbara J BJ Bennett Sarah D SD

The Lancet. Infectious diseases 20200729 11

Background Scant data are available about global patterns of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spread and global epidemiology of early confirmed cases of COVID-19 outside mainland China. We describe the global spread of SARS-CoV-2 and characteristics of COVID-19 cases and clusters before the characterisation of COVID-19 as a pandemic.<h4>Methods</h4>Cases of COVID-19 reported between Dec 31, 2019, and March 10, 2020 (ie, the prepandemic period), were identified daily f ...[more]

PMID: 32738203

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is a highly transmissible illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. The disease has affected more than 200 countries, and the measures that have been implemented to combat its spread, as there is still no vaccine or definitive medication, have been based on supportive interventions and drug repositioning. Brazil, the largest country in South America, has had more than 140,000 recorded deaths and is one of the most affected countries. Despite the extensive quantity of scientifically recognized information, there are still conflicting discussions on how best to face the disease and the virus, especially with regard to social distancing, preventive methods, and the use of medications.ObjectiveThe main purpose of this study is to evaluate the Brazilian population's basic knowledge about COVID-19 to demonstrate how Brazilians are managing to identify scientifically proven information.MethodsA cross-sectional study design was used. An original online questionnaire survey was administered from June 16 to August 21, 2020, across all five different geopolitical regions of the country (ie, the North, Northeast, Center-West, Southeast, and South). The questionnaire was comprised of questions about basic aspects of COVID-19, such as the related symptoms, conduct that should be followed when suspected of infection, risk groups, prevention, transmission, and social distancing. The wrong questionnaire response alternatives were taken from the fake news combat website of the Brazilian Ministry of Health. Participants (aged ≥18 years) were recruited through social networking platforms, including Facebook, WhatsApp, and Twitter. The mean distributions, frequencies, and similarities or dissimilarities between the responses for the different variables of the study were evaluated. The significance level for all statistical tests was less than .05.ResultsA total of 4180 valid responses representative of all the states and regions of Brazil were recorded. Most respondents had good knowledge about COVID-19, getting an average of 86.59% of the total score with regard to the basic aspects of the disease. The region, education level, age, sex, and social condition had a significant association (P<.001) with knowledge about the disease, which meant that women, the young, those with higher education levels, nonrecipients of social assistance, and more economically and socially developed regions had more correct answers.ConclusionsOverall, Brazilians with social media access have a good level of basic knowledge about COVID-19 but with differences depending on the analyzed subgroup. Due to the limitation of the platform used in carrying out the study, care should be taken when generalizing the study findings to populations with less education or who are not used to accessing social networking platforms.

Project description:This study explores the response to COVID-19 from investigators, editors, and publishers and seeks to define challenges during the early stages of the pandemic. A cross-sectional bibliometric review of COVID-19 literature was undertaken between 1 November 2019 and 24 March 2020, along with a comparative review of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) literature. Investigator responsiveness was assessed by measuring the volume and type of research published. Editorial responsiveness was assessed by measuring the submission-to-acceptance time and availability of original data. Publisher-responsiveness was assessed by measuring the acceptance-to-publication time and the provision of open access. Three hundred and ninety-eight of 2,835 COVID-19 and 55 of 1,513 MERS search results were eligible. Most COVID-19 studies were clinical reports (n = 242; 60.8%). The submission-to-acceptance [median: 5 days (IQR: 3-11) versus 71.5 days (38-106); P < .001] and acceptance-to-publication [median: 5 days (IQR: 2-8) versus 22.5 days (4-48·5-; P < .001] times were strikingly shorter for COVID-19. Almost all COVID-19 (n = 396; 99.5%) and MERS (n = 55; 100%) studies were open-access. Data sharing was infrequent, with original data available for 104 (26.1%) COVID-19 and 10 (18.2%) MERS studies (P = .203). The early academic response was characterized by investigators aiming to define the disease. Studies were made rapidly and openly available. Only one-in-four were published alongside original data, which is a key target for improvement.Key pointsCOVID-19 publications show rapid response from investigators, specifically aiming to define the disease.Median time between submission and acceptance of COVID-19 articles is 5 days demonstrating rapid decision-making compared with the median of 71.5 days for MERS articles.Median time from acceptance to publication of COVID-19 articles is 5 days, confirming the ability to introduce rapid increases at times of crisis, such as during the SARS outbreak.The majority of both COVID-19 and MERS articles are available open-access.

Project description:IntroductionThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination generates protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection. There is no clear evidence of COVID-19 vaccine-induced menstrual irregularities.ObjectiveTo identify potential menstrual irregularities following COVID-19 vaccine among females.MethodsA worldwide cross-sectional survey study was conducted from June 10, 2021, to July 10, 2021 using online mediums. The survey consisted of 15 questions divided into baseline characteristics, vaccination status and dosage, menstruation and relate factors, and thoughts and knowledge about menstrual irregularities. Non-probability convenience sampling method was used including 510 responses. The results were tabulated, with bivariate analysis and chi-square test results. The sensitivity and specificity test of factors associated to knowledge about menstrual irregularities post COVID-19 vaccination were analyzed by receiver operating characteristic analysis.ResultsThe associations between healthcare worker (HCW) status and perceptions (χ2 = 10.422; p = 0.064), and knowledge about menstrual irregularities post-vaccination (χ2 = 1.966; p = 0.161) were found. Vaccinated compared to non-vaccinated women had a higher risk of change in inter-cycle length between periods (OR = 3.172; 95% CI = 0.470-21.431). Of 314 HCW vs. 196 non-HCW, 60 (19.1%) vs. 28 (14.3%) were knowledgeable about menstrual irregularities (OR = 1.338, 95% CI = 0.886-2.019 vs. OR = 0.944; 95% CI = 0.873-1.021). On asking the HCW vs. non-HCW about perceptions of COVID-19 vaccine-induced menstrual irregularities, 24 (7.6%) vs. 9 (4.6%) agreed, 139 (44.3%) vs. 67 (34.2%) disagreed, and 151 (48.1%) vs. 120 (61.2%) did not know or chose not applicable.ConclusionThere is a gap in the current understanding of menstrual irregularities, even if temporary, following COVID-19 vaccination that requires further exploration. Misinformation may also be the culprit for the observed proportion of women that noticed changes in their menstrual periods after COVID-19 vaccination.

Dataset Information

Observations of the global epidemiology of COVID-19 from the prepandemic period using web-based surveillance: a cross-sectional analysis.

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Observations of the global epidemiology of COVID-19 from the prepandemic period using web-based surveillance: a cross-sectional analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets