A rapid review of available evidence on the serial interval and generation time of COVID-19

Range of estimates obtained

The papers reviewed provide initial parameter estimates for the serial interval and/or the generation time for COVID-19. Most of the estimates were for the serial interval rather than the generation time because in real life infection times are rarely available, so generation times cannot be estimated. Instead, typically, the onset of symptoms is observed. The estimates for the mean of the serial interval ranged from 3.1 to 7.5 days. There are a number of reasons why the estimates are wide ranging. The interval between symptoms in an infector-infectee pair will be strongly influenced by the level of social contact. This will vary widely between different countries and indeed within countries. The impact of mitigation measures is also likely to be a key factor. The implementation of control measures will reduce the opportunity for an infected individual to transmit the disease to a susceptible individual. Consequently, the serial interval is likely to decrease during the course of an epidemic. Zhao et al. [15] showed that the serial interval decreased by 6.2% per day (95% CI, 0.4-11.6%) from January 10 to February 2 in Hong Kong and Shenzhen. They attributed this to the strengthening of the public health control measures over time. Stratified results produced by Bi et al.[19] showed that if the infector was isolated less than 3 days after symptom onset, the average serial interval was 3.6 days, increasing to 8.1 days if the infector was isolated on the third day after symptom onset or later. Du et al. [9] pointed out that the time between successive cases contracts around the epidemic peak and that this may have influenced their estimates. On the other hand, in a study of the Po’ municipality of Italy, Lavezzo et al. [11] estimated that the serial interval increased from 6.90 days before the implementation of comprehensive control measures to 10.12 days after the implementation of these measures. Possible reasons for this increase are not discussed in the paper.

The value of estimating the serial interval, generation time and other key parameters at the start of an epidemic was emphasized by a number of authors. As highlighted by Bi et al.[19], the study of an emerging pathogen at the time of its introduction provides a unique opportunity to characterize its transmission and natural history. In particular, it is possible to make assumptions about when and where cases were likely infected that are more difficult when the pathogen is widespread. Furthermore, during these early phases, uninfected and asymptomatic contacts are often closely tracked, providing critical information on transmission and natural history.

Methods used for estimating the serial interval and the generation time

The estimation of the serial interval and the generation time parameters for COVID-19 presented a number of other challenges and the potential for obtaining biased estimates, as was acknowledged by a number of authors. We identified a number of specific issues in the papers that we reviewed, including the following:

• In clustered outbreaks, which is crucial to estimating the serial interval, the order of transmission (i.e., who is infector and who is infectee) can easily be mistaken. Also, given the possibility of pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission particularly as the epidemic progresses, it can be difficult to determine the source of infection with certainty. In view of this, it is important that there is a well-defined methodology for determining the serial interval/generation time. Some of the studies did not describe how the order of transmission issue was handled. In other studies, efforts were made to deal with the difficulties related to the order of transmission and the true source of infection. Nishiura et al. [26] provided separate estimates of the serial interval parameter distribution for “18 most certain pairs”. Zhao et al.[21] provided separate estimates of the serial interval parameter distribution for “infectees with only one infector”. Tindale et al.[27] used a mixture model approach for serial intervals to avoid assuming that the presumed infector is always the true infector. Ganyani et al. [24] used a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) approach for the same purpose. Ma et al. [25] made an effort to overcome this issue by setting out a clear methodology for ensuring that the order of transmission was correct.

• Generally, publicly available datasets were used in the studies under review. Zhao et al. [21] mention the fact that the lack of information in publicly available datasets makes it difficult to fully interpret the data. Also as mentioned by Du et al.[9], if the data are restricted to online reports of confirmed cases, they might be biased toward more severe cases in areas with a high-functioning healthcare and public health infrastructure. The rapid isolation of such case-patients might prevent longer serial intervals, potentially shifting the estimates downward compared with serial intervals that might be observed in an uncontrolled epidemic. In general, it is likely that less severe and asymptomatic cases are underrepresented in the datasets examined.

• In some of the studies, infector-infectee pairs from a variety of countries were used to estimate the serial interval. The number of pairs from some countries were very small. For example, in the paper by He et al. [17], of the 77 pairs used, one was from the USA, one was from Singapore, two were from Malaysia, two were from Vietnam, four were from Taiwan, 12 were from Japan and the rest were from various parts of China. These cannot be considered representative of the countries from which they were drawn. The same conclusion applies to the studies by Ma et al. [25], Ferretti et al. [13], Nishiura et al.[26] and Wu et al.[16]. In other studies, pairs were drawn from particular countries or regions during particular time periods. These may have been more representative of the population from which they were drawn. However, in some cases, e.g. Li et al. [12], the number of pairs selected was very small compared to the total number of cases included in the study, again calling into question the representativeness of the pairs used to estimate the serial interval or generation time.

• The case data, including the identity of each infector and the timing of symptom onset, was based on individual recollection of past events. Du et al. [9] highlight the fact that if recall accuracy is impeded by time or trauma, case-patients might be more likely to attribute infection to recent encounters (short serial intervals) over past encounters (longer serial intervals). Therefore, it is likely that recall bias is present in all of the studies and it is not possible to distinguish the level of bias present in the different studies.

• The number of pairs used to estimate the serial interval varied considerably. Only six pairs were used in the study by Li et al. [12]. In contrast, a total of 468 pairs were used in the study by Du et al.[9] and 689 pairs were studied by Ma et al.[25]. However, the value of increased sample size must be evaluated against the difficulty of ensuring accuracy of the infector infectee relationship as the sample size increases. Lavezzo et al. [11] indicate that 120 pairs were used in their study but there is a lack of clarity on how this number was obtained.

• Cheng et al. [23] state that 12 pairs were used in their estimation of the serial interval. Figure 1 of their paper indicates that these included three cases with asymptomatic infection. It is not clear how these cases were handled in estimating the series interval. Moreover, pairs in which the exposure date of the infectee was earlier than the date of symptom onset of the infector were excluded from the study.

• In the study by Zhang et al. [14] and in other studies, the serial interval was estimated from cases in household clusters. The authors make the point that estimations based on household clusters may be 20% shorter than the true value of the serial interval.

• Zhao et al. [21] highlighted the possibility of right truncated selection bias, i.e. the possibility of infector-infectee pairs with longer SI being under-represented in the sample due to short investigation period. To minimise this possibility, the set that last date of onset symptoms for infectees as 16 days before the end of the study investigation point.

It should be borne in mind that some of the studies may have been using the same case data in estimating the serial interval or the generation time. For example, the studies by Tindale et al.[27] and Ganyani et al.[24] were carried out in Singapore and Tianjin over the same time period. Consequently, the estimates cannot be considered to be fully independent of each other. Likewise, it is possible that there was an overlap in the case data used by Du et al. [9] and Du et al. [22] as these studies were carried out by the same group of authors.

Statistical distributions used in estimating serial interval and generation time

In most of the studies, a gamma or Weibull distribution was fitted to the data to estimate the serial interval distribution. A problem with these distributions is that negative values of the serial interval (that is, when symptoms manifest in the infectee before the infector) cannot be included. In the study by Du et al.[9], 59 of the 468 reports indicate that the infectee had symptoms earlier than the infector. Du et al. [9] and Du et al.[22] cautioned against using distributions that excluded the non-positive data and making assessments and projections based on the truncated data. In their view, the normal distribution provides the best fit for the full dataset (shifted or not) and they recommended this distribution for future epidemiologic assessments. This approach was also used by Ma et al.[25] and Tindale et al.[27]. In Ma et al.[25] study, shifted lognormal, Weibull and gamma distributions were also fitted to the data for the serial interval.

Relationship between the serial interval, generation time and the reproduction number

The generation time is used to estimate the reproduction number. Because of the difficulty in estimating the generation time, the serial interval is often used as a surrogate for the generation time. The serial interval and the generation time will have the same mean value provided that the incubation times of the infectee and infector are independent and identically distributed but their variances are expected to be different. Britton and Scalia-Tomba[28] highlighted the fact that the difference in variance between the serial and generation time can lead to biased estimates of the reproduction number. More specifically, when the serial interval distribution has a larger variance than the generation time distribution, using the serial interval as a proxy for the generation time will lead to an underestimation of the basic reproduction number. Ganyani et al.[24] provided estimates for both parameters based on data from Singapore and China and described a method for obtaining an unbiased estimate of the generation time.