The incubation period during the pandemic of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The aim of our study was to determine through a systematic review and meta-analysis the incubation period of COVID-19. It was conducted based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). Criteria for eligibility were all published population-based primary literature in PubMed interface and the Science Direct, dealing with incubation period of COVID-19, written in English, since December 2019 to December 2020. We estimated the mean of the incubation period using meta-analysis, taking into account between-study heterogeneity, and the analysis with moderator variables.Results
This review included 42 studies done predominantly in China. The mean and median incubation period were of maximum 8 days and 12 days respectively. In various parametric models, the 95th percentiles were in the range 10.3-16 days. The highest 99th percentile would be as long as 20.4 days. Out of the 10 included studies in the meta-analysis, 8 were conducted in China, 1 in Singapore, and 1 in Argentina. The pooled mean incubation period was 6.2 (95% CI 5.4, 7.0) days. The heterogeneity (I2 77.1%; p < 0.001) was decreased when we included the study quality and the method of calculation used as moderator variables (I2 0%). The mean incubation period ranged from 5.2 (95% CI 4.4 to 5.9) to 6.65 days (95% CI 6.0 to 7.2).Conclusions
This work provides additional evidence of incubation period for COVID-19 and showed that it is prudent not to dismiss the possibility of incubation periods up to 14 days at this stage of the epidemic.
SUBMITTER: Dhouib W
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8031340 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and objectiveThe incubation period of COVID-19 helps to determine the optimal duration of the quarantine and inform predictive models of incidence curves. Several emerging studies have produced varying results; this systematic review aims to provide a more accurate estimate of the incubation period of COVID-19.MethodsFor this systematic review, a literature search was conducted using Pubmed, Scopus/EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases, covering all observational and experimental studies reporting the incubation period and published from 1 January 2020 to 21 March 2020.We estimated the mean and 95th percentile of the incubation period using meta-analysis, taking into account between-study heterogeneity, and the analysis with moderator variables.ResultsWe included seven studies (n=792) in the meta-analysis. The heterogeneity (I2 83.0%, p<0.001) was significantly decreased when we included the study quality and the statistical model used as moderator variables (I2 15%). The mean incubation period ranged from 5.6 (95% CI: 5.2-6.0) to 6.7 days (95% CI: 6.0-7.4) according to the statistical model. The 95th percentile was 12.5 days when the mean age of patients was 60 years, increasing 1 day for every 10 years.ConclusionBased on the published data reporting the incubation period of COVID-19, the mean time between exposure and onset of clinical symptoms depended on the statistical model used, and the 95th percentile depended on the mean age of the patients. It is advisable to record sex and age when collecting data in order to analyze possible differential patterns.
| S-EPMC7698828 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectiveThe incubation period of COVID-19 helps to determine the optimal duration of the quarantine and inform predictive models of incidence curves. Several emerging studies have produced varying results; this systematic review aims to provide a more accurate estimate of the incubation period of COVID-19.MethodsFor this systematic review, a literature search was conducted using Pubmed, Scopus/EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases, covering all observational and experimental studies reporting the incubation period and published from 1 January 2020 to 21 March 2020.We estimated the mean and 95th percentile of the incubation period using meta-analysis, taking into account between-study heterogeneity, and the analysis with moderator variables.ResultsWe included seven studies (n = 792) in the meta-analysis. The heterogeneity (I2 83.0%, p < 0.001) was significantly decreased when we included the study quality and the statistical model used as moderator variables (I2 15%). The mean incubation period ranged from 5.6 (95% CI: 5.2 to 6.0) to 6.7 days (95% CI: 6.0 to 7.4) according to the statistical model. The 95th percentile was 12.5 days when the mean age of patients was 60 years, increasing 1 day for every 10 years.ConclusionBased on the published data reporting the incubation period of COVID-19, the mean time between exposure and onset of clinical symptoms depended on the statistical model used, and the 95th percentile depended on the mean age of the patients. It is advisable to record sex and age when collecting data in order to analyze possible differential patterns.
| S-EPMC7528969 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding the epidemiological parameters that determine the transmission dynamics of COVID-19 is essential for public health intervention. Globally, a number of studies were conducted to estimate the average serial interval and incubation period of COVID-19. Combining findings of existing studies that estimate the average serial interval and incubation period of COVID-19 significantly improves the quality of evidence. Hence, this study aimed to determine the overall average serial interval and incubation period of COVID-19.MethodsWe followed the PRISMA checklist to present this study. A comprehensive search strategy was carried out from international electronic databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library) by two experienced reviewers (MAA and DBK) authors between the 1st of June and the 31st of July 2020. All observational studies either reporting the serial interval or incubation period in persons diagnosed with COVID-19 were included in this study. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed using the I2 and Higgins test. The NOS adapted for cross-sectional studies was used to evaluate the quality of studies. A random effect Meta-analysis was employed to determine the pooled estimate with 95% (CI). Microsoft Excel was used for data extraction and R software was used for analysis.ResultsWe combined a total of 23 studies to estimate the overall mean serial interval of COVID-19. The mean serial interval of COVID-19 ranged from 4. 2 to 7.5 days. Our meta-analysis showed that the weighted pooled mean serial interval of COVID-19 was 5.2 (95%CI: 4.9-5.5) days. Additionally, to pool the mean incubation period of COVID-19, we included 14 articles. The mean incubation period of COVID-19 also ranged from 4.8 to 9 days. Accordingly, the weighted pooled mean incubation period of COVID-19 was 6.5 (95%CI: 5.9-7.1) days.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the weighted pooled mean serial interval and incubation period of COVID-19 were 5.2, and 6.5 days, respectively. In this study, the average serial interval of COVID-19 is shorter than the average incubation period, which suggests that substantial numbers of COVID-19 cases will be attributed to presymptomatic transmission.
| S-EPMC7948654 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to conduct a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of estimates of the incubation period of COVID-19.DesignRapid systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research.SettingInternational studies on incubation period of COVID-19.ParticipantsSearches were carried out in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, Cochrane Library as well as the preprint servers MedRxiv and BioRxiv. Studies were selected for meta-analysis if they reported either the parameters and CIs of the distributions fit to the data, or sufficient information to facilitate calculation of those values. After initial eligibility screening, 24 studies were selected for initial review, nine of these were shortlisted for meta-analysis. Final estimates are from meta-analysis of eight studies.Primary outcome measuresParameters of a lognormal distribution of incubation periods.ResultsThe incubation period distribution may be modelled with a lognormal distribution with pooled mu and sigma parameters (95% CIs) of 1.63 (95% CI 1.51 to 1.75) and 0.50 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.55), respectively. The corresponding mean (95% CIs) was 5.8 (95% CI 5.0 to 6.7) days. It should be noted that uncertainty increases towards the tail of the distribution: the pooled parameter estimates (95% CIs) resulted in a median incubation period of 5.1 (95% CI 4.5 to 5.8) days, whereas the 95th percentile was 11.7 (95% CI 9.7 to 14.2) days.ConclusionsThe choice of which parameter values are adopted will depend on how the information is used, the associated risks and the perceived consequences of decisions to be taken. These recommendations will need to be revisited once further relevant information becomes available. Accordingly, we present an R Shiny app that facilitates updating these estimates as new data become available.
| S-EPMC7430485 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo estimate the central tendency and dispersion for incubation period of COVID-19 and, in turn, assess the effect of a certain length of quarantine for close contacts in active monitoring.MethodsLiterature related to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 was searched through April 26, 2020. Quality was assessed according to Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidelines. Log-normal distribution for the incubation period was assumed to estimate the parameters for each study. Incubation period median and dispersion were estimated, and distribution was simulated.ResultsFifty-six studies encompassing 4095 cases were included in this meta-analysis. The estimated median incubation period for general transmissions was 5.8 days [95% confidence interval (95% CI): 5.3, 6.2]. Incubation period was significantly longer for asymptomatic transmissions (median: 7.7 days; 95% CI 6.3, 9.4) than for general transmissions (P = 0.0408). Median and dispersion were higher for SARS-CoV-2 incubation compared to other viral respiratory infections. Furthermore, about 12 in 10,000 contacts in active monitoring would develop symptoms after 14 days, or below 1 in 10,000 for asymptomatic transmissions. Meta-regression suggested that each 10-year increase in age resulted in an average 16% increment in length of median incubation (incubation period ratio, 1.16, 95% CI 1.01, 1.32; P = 0.0250).ConclusionThis study estimated the median and dispersion of the SARS-CoV-2 incubation period more precisely. A 14-day quarantine period is sufficient to trace and identify symptomatic infections.
| S-EPMC8372687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of measures designed to mitigate the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on worldwide cancer screening. We systematically searched PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and EMBASE without language restrictions for studies published between January 1, 2021, and February 10, 2021. Studies selected for full-text review contained data on patients screened for any type of cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic and comparison data from a time interval just prior to the pandemic. Data were obtained through dual extraction. All the included studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias. A meta-analysis was performed on 13 studies: 7 on screening mammography, 5 on colon cancer screening, and 3 on cervical cancer screening. Two of our studies reported on more than one type of cancer screening. The screening outcomes were reported as pooled incidence rate ratios using the inverse variance method and random effects models. All studies included in our meta-analysis reported the number of patients screened for cancer in defined time intervals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that the pooled incidence rate ratios were significantly lower for screening during the COVID-19 pandemic for breast cancer (0.63; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.77; P<.001), colon cancer (0.11; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.24; P<.001), and cervical cancer (0.10; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.24; P<.001). These findings may add further morbidity and mortality to this public health crisis.
| S-EPMC8520861 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Accurate knowledge of pathogen incubation period is essential to inform public health policies and implement interventions that contribute to the reduction of burden of disease. The incubation period distribution of campylobacteriosis is currently unknown with several sources reporting different times. Variation in the distribution could be expected due to host, transmission vehicle, and organism characteristics, however, the extent of this variation and influencing factors are unclear. The authors have undertaken a systematic review of published literature of outbreak studies with well-defined point source exposures and human experimental studies to estimate the distribution of incubation period and also identify and explain the variation in the distribution between studies. We tested for heterogeneity using I 2 and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, regressed incubation period against possible explanatory factors, and used hierarchical clustering analysis to define subgroups of studies without evidence of heterogeneity. The mean incubation period of subgroups ranged from 2·5 to 4·3 days. We observed variation in the distribution of incubation period between studies that was not due to chance. A significant association between the mean incubation period and age distribution was observed with outbreaks involving only children reporting an incubation of 1·29 days longer when compared with outbreaks involving other age groups.
| S-EPMC9148824 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the extent of sleep disturbances during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eleven databases and six preprint repositories were searched for the period from November 1, 2019, to July 15, 2021. The DerSimonian and Laird method was used to develop random-effect meta-analyses. Two hundred and fifty studies comprising 493,475 participants from 49 countries were included. During COVID-19, the estimated global prevalence of sleep disturbances was 40.49% [37.56; 43.48%]. Bayesian meta-analysis revealed an odds of 0.68 [0.59; 0.77] which translates to a rate of approximately 41%. This provides reassurance that the estimated rate using classical meta-analysis is robust. Six major populations were identified; the estimated prevalence of sleep problem was 52.39% [41.69; 62.88%] among patients infected with COVID-19, 45.96% [36.90; 55.30%] among children and adolescents, 42.47% [37.95; 47.12%] among healthcare workers, 41.50% [32.98; 50.56%] among special populations with healthcare needs, 41.16% [28.76; 54.79%] among university students, and 36.73% [32.32; 41.38%] among the general population. Sleep disturbances were higher during lockdown compared to no lockdown, 42.49% versus 37.97%. Four in every ten individuals reported a sleep problem during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients infected with the disease, children, and adolescents appeared to be the most affected groups.
| S-EPMC8782754 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic and measures aimed at its mitigation, such as physical distancing, have been discussed as risk factors for loneliness, which increases the risk of premature mortality and mental and physical health conditions. To ascertain whether loneliness has increased since the start of the pandemic, this study aimed to narratively and statistically synthesize relevant high-quality primary studies. This systematic review with meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (ID CRD42021246771). Searched databases were PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library/Central Register of Controlled Trials/EMBASE/CINAHL, Web of Science, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 database, supplemented by Google Scholar and citation searching (cutoff date of the systematic search December 5, 2021). Summary data from prospective research including loneliness assessments before and during the pandemic were extracted. Of 6,850 retrieved records, 34 studies (23 longitudinal, 9 pseudolongitudinal, 2 reporting both designs) on 215,026 participants were included. Risk of bias (RoB) was estimated using the risk of bias in non-randomised studies-of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Standardized mean differences (SMD, Hedges' g) for continuous loneliness values and logOR for loneliness prevalence rates were calculated as pooled effect size estimators in random-effects meta-analyses. Pooling studies with longitudinal designs only (overall N = 45,734), loneliness scores (19 studies, SMD = 0.27 [95% confidence interval = 0.14-0.40], Z = 4.02, p < .001, I 2 = 98%) and prevalence rates (8 studies, logOR = 0.33 [0.04-0.62], Z = 2.25, p = .02, I 2 = 96%) increased relative to prepandemic times with small effect sizes. Results were robust with respect to studies' overall RoB, pseudolongitudinal designs, timing of prepandemic assessments, and clinical populations. The heterogeneity of effects indicates a need to further investigate risk and protective factors as the pandemic progresses to inform targeted interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
| S-EPMC9768682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe lifestyle and habit changes that have emerged as a result of quarantine measures may have had a negative impact on defecation habits. However, there is a lack of data on combined estimates of its occurrence and prevalence.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic search for observational studies on PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, SinoMed, VIP China Science and Technology Journal database, Chinese Biomedical Databases and Wanfang Data. The search will include literature published from the inception of the databases to September 2022. Two authors will independently screen articles and extract data based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The risk of bias in the included studies will be evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Statistical analysis will be performed using Review Manager software V.5.4 and STATA V.16.0 software. Heterogeneity among studies will be assessed using the Q statistical test and I2 statistical tests. In case of significant heterogeneity, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be conducted to explore the source of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses will also be performed to assess the reliability of the study findings. If feasible, a meta-analysis will be conducted. Otherwise, a descriptive synthesis will be performed using a best-evidence synthesis approach. The primary outcome of interest will be the prevalence of constipation. The secondary outcomes will involve examining the association of risk factors. To evaluate potential publication bias, we will use both the Begg funnel plot and Egger's weighted regression statistics. Furthermore, to accurately assess the quality of evidence for our primary outcome, we will employ the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review protocol will only consider published studies available in databases and will not include individual patient data. Therefore, ethical approval is not required, and the findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Prosper registration numberCRD42022366176.
| S-EPMC10546134 | biostudies-literature