Estimation of novel coronavirus (covid-19) reproduction number and case fatality rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Tanvir Ahammed, Aniqua Anjum, Mohammad Meshbahur Rahman, Najmul Haider, Richard Kock, Md. Jamal Uddin
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.30.20204644

Abstract

Understanding the transmission dynamics and the severity of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) informs public health interventions, surveillance, and planning. Two important parameters, the basic reproduction number (R0) and case fatality rate (CFR) of COVID-19, help in this understanding process. The objective of this study was to estimate the R0 and CFR of COVID-19 and assess whether the parameters vary in different regions of the world. We carried out a systematic review to retrieve the published estimates of the R0 and the CFR in articles from international databases between 1st January and 31st August 2020. Random-effect models and Forest plots were implemented to evaluate the mean effect size of the R0 and the CFR. Furthermore, the R0 and CFR of the studies were quantified based on geographic location, the tests/thousand population, and the median population age of the countries where studies were conducted. The I2 statistic and the Cochran’s Q test were applied to assess statistical heterogeneity among the selected studies. Forty-five studies involving R0 and thirty-four studies involving CFR were included. The pooled estimation of the R0 was 2.69 (95% CI: 2.40, 2.98), and that of the CFR was 2.67 (2.25, 3.13). The CFR in different regions of the world varied significantly, from 2.51 (2.12, 2.95) in Asia to 7.11 (6.38, 7.91) in Africa. We observed higher mean CFR values for the countries with lower tests (3.15 vs. 2.16) and greater median population age (3.13 vs. 2.27). However, the R0 did not vary significantly in different regions of the world. An R0 of 2.69 and CFR of 2.67 indicate the severity of the COVID-19. Although R0 and CFR may vary over time, space, and demographics, we recommend considering these figures in control and prevention measures.

Introduction

Since the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19, in late 2019, there have been more than 35 million confirmed cases, and 950,000 confirmed deaths have been reported as of 19 September 2020 [1]. The basic reproduction number (R0), used to measure the transmission potential of a disease, can be used to inform public health policies. The R0 is defined as the expected number of cases directly generated by one infected case in a population where all individuals are susceptible [2,3]. Outbreaks will continue to propagate until this number falls below 1.0. A timely and accurate assessment of COVID-19’s R0 informs COVID is of great significance for assessing the spread of the virus, predicting future trends, and adjusting a series of control measures.

Another important factor to inform is the case fatality rate (CFR), which is the proportion of deaths compared to the total number of people diagnosed with a disease within a defined population of interest and is typically presented as a percentage [4]. CFR is an indicator of disease severity and can be used to identify high-risk populations to inform targeted interventions and the overall public health response [5].

To understand the transmissibility and severity of SARS-CoV-2 in populations, there have been several estimates of R0 and the CFR. Estimates of R0 and CFR have varied in different countries and different settings [6]. For example, in the Diamond Princess cruise ship, the estimated median R0 was 2.28 (95% CI: 2.06-2.52) [7]. In Wuhan, during the early phase of the outbreak, the R0 was estimated as 2.24 (95% CI: 1.96-2.55) [8]. The R0 has also been estimated for several other countries including Italy, 3.2 (95% CI: 2.9-3.5) [9]; USA, 5.3 (95% CI: 4.35-6.25) [10]; and, Japan, 2.6 (95% CI: 2.4-2.8) [11].

Likewise, estimates of CFRs have varied in different countries and phases of the pandemic. A study found that at the start of the epidemic, CFR in China was 2%, but on 5 March 2020, it was increased to 3.7%. In South Korea, the same study reported the CFR as 0.6% on 5 March 2020 [12]. In Europe, during March 2020, Italy, Spain, and France had a CFR of 9.26%, 6.16%, and 4.21%, respectively [13]. Given the considerable variation in estimates of both these parameters, in this current study, our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature on the COVID-19 outbreak to provide summary statistics of the R0 and the CFR, which have the best applicability for other countries or regions.

Methods

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2009. We registered the study protocol with the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) (registration number ID: CRD42020182867).

Search strategy

We systematically searched the major databases: LitCovid (a curated COVID-19 database of PubMed), PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from 1 January 2020 to 31 August 2020. We searched articles for “Basic reproduction number (R0)” and “Case-fatality rate (CFR)” of the COVID-19 patients. For basic reproduction number, the search terms were: “2019 novel coronavirus and COVID-19” AND “Basic reproduction number”, OR “Basic reproduction rate” OR “R0”. For the case fatality rate, the search terms were “2019 novel coronavirus and COVID-19” AND “case fatality rate”, OR “case fatality ratio”, OR “CFR” according to the indices of the various databases (Supplementary Table S1). We also hand searched included papers’ reference lists and contacted experts in the field to ensure a comprehensive review. Records were managed by Mendeley version 1.19.4 software to exclude duplicates.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Articles were selected if they reported CFR and/or R0 with a confidence interval of the patients with COVID-19. The inclusion criteria for studies were laboratory-confirmed parents with COVID-19; reported at sufficient sample size; considered all age-groups; and published in English and any counties or regions of the world. Studies were excluded if they were: pre-prints; reviews articles; editorials and case reports; letters to the editor and short communications; and specific to children or pregnant women. However, we did not exclude some special populations representative of the general population in a particular setting (e.g., Diamond Princess cruise ship). The steps of the literature search are illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Flow diagram for included studies in the meta-analysis.

CFR = Case Fatality Rate; R0 = basic reproduction number; Re = effective reproduction number.

Data screening and extraction

After excluding duplicate papers, two investigators (TA and AA) independently screened the titles and abstracts using the eligibility criteria and then assessed the rest full-text articles for eligibility. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with co-authors. A standardized form was used to extract data from all eligible studies. For each selected articles, the following information’s were extracted: publication details [title, first author, publication year, journal name and publisher]; design and population [country, study design, study period, and sample size]; participants’ characteristics and major findings [number of deaths, case fatality rate, basic reproduction number, confidence interval, methods applied, standard deviation, and any other relevant statistics]. Forty five research articles [7,9,20–29,10,30–39,11,40–49,14,50–54,15–19] for R0 and 34 research articles [13,15,62–71,24,72–81,55,82–85,56–61] for CFR estimation were selected.

Critical appraisal and publication bias

The critical appraisal of each selected study was assessed by TA and AA independently using modified Risk of Bias (ROB) operational criteria (Supplementary Table S2 and Table S3) [86]. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot, and the Egger’s test with P < 0.05 was an indication of small-study effects.

Statistical analysis

We defined R0 as the expected number of cases directly generated by one infected case in a population where all individuals are susceptible and CFR as the percentage of COVID-19 cases that result in death. Background statistics of the COVID-19 patients were recorded through frequency distribution analysis. A random-effect model was, therefore, used to perform a meta-analysis. The geo-location variations for R0 and geo-location, tests per thousand population, and population median age variations for CRF were examined using subgroup analysis. The median values of the frequency distributions were used as cut-off values of the sub-groups. Heterogeneity was assessed among the selected studies using the Higgin’s & Thompson’s I2 statistic and Cochran’s Q test. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata SE version 16.1 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA 5.

Results

We identified a total of 490 articles estimating R0. After considering the duplicates, inclusion, and exclusion criteria, we reviewed these research articles. We searched for titles, abstracts and keywords, methodology, and references and found 59 articles to investigate further (Fig. 1). Out of these 59 articles, we found 45 research articles that reported 108 R0 estimates ranging from 0.27 to 8.21 with related statistics for a meta-analysis (Supplementary Table S4). Similarly, for the CFR, after considering filtering criteria, only 34 research articles out of 955 articles qualified for quantifying parameter values of CFR (Fig. 1), and these 34 articles provided 158 estimates of CFR ranging from 0.00 to 25.9 for use in the meta-analysis (Supplementary Table S5). No studies were excluded.

Pooled estimation of the basic reproduction number (R0)

In the random-effects model, the pooled R0 for COVID-19 was estimated as 2.69 (2.40, 2.98), indicating that an infected person with COVID-19 can transmit the infection to on average three susceptible people (Table 1, and Fig. 2). There was significant heterogeneity between studies (I2: 99.96) (Table 1).

View this table:
Table 1.

Effect size and test of heterogeneity for the basic reproduction number (R0) by region.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Forest plot of the basic reproduction number (R0) values based on the random-effects model.

The outcome of subgroup analysis showed that the R0 value for Africa was 2.40 (0.96, 3.84), for Asia was 2.56 (2.19, 2.94), for ‘Europe’ was 2.70 (2.26, 3.13), for North America was 3.69 (1.46, 5.92), and for South America was 2.32 (2.07, 2.57) (Table 1). However, the test of regional subgroup differences using the random-effects model confirms that the estimated mean R0 values are not significantly different across these regions (p= 0.43). The Funnel plot for assessing publication bias of R0 values computed from the random-effects model is shown in Fig.3. This Funnel plot is indicating the existence of asymmetry and publication bias. Additionally, the Egger’s test (P < 0.001) suggested the presence of small-study effects.

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Funnel plot for the basic reproduction number (R0) values based on the random-effects model.

Pooled estimation of the Case fatality rate (CFR)

The pooled estimation of the CFR from the random-effects model was 2.67 (2.25, 3.13). There was significant heterogeneity between studies (I2: 99.95, Q = 315324.53 with p = 0.00) (Table 2, and Fig. 4). The high value of I2 statistic (99.95%) confirms a high level of between-study heterogeneity.

View this table:
Table 2.

Effect size and test of heterogeneity for the case fatality rate (CFR) by region, population median age (median value), tests per thousand population (median value).

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Forest plot of the case fatality rate (CFR) values based on the random-effects model.

The outcome of the subgroup analyses stratified by region showed that the CFR for Africa was 7.11 (6.38, 7.91), for Asia was 2.51 (2.12, 2.95), and for Europe was 2.66 (1.83, 3.64), for North America was 3.40 (2.81, 4.04), and for South America was 2.89 (2.03, 3.89) (Table 2). We observed higher mean CFR values for the countries with lower tests (3.15 vs. 2.16) and greater median population age (3.13 vs. 2.27). The subgroup difference tests using the random-effects model are significant (Table 2). This confirms that the estimated mean CFR values are significantly different across these subgroups. The Funnel plot for CFR values is shown in Fig. 5. Though the Funnel plot is indicating asymmetry, the Egger test (P= 0.182) suggested that there was no significant evidence of small-study effects.

Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.

Funnel plot for the case fatality rate (CFR) values based on the random-effects model.

However, if we exclude the extreme CFR values (reported in the included articles), the pooled CFR estimation became 2.63 (2.24, 3.05). Furthermore, if we exclude the cases where naïve CFR (estimated as the ratio of the deaths to the confirmed cases mentioned in the article) > 4, the pooled CFR estimation became 1.23 (0.97, 1.53).

Discussion

Our estimate of the R0 statistic implies that one infectious person can transmit the infection to more than two and a half susceptible persons in a naïve population in the absence of any control measures. However, the R0 did not vary significantly across the continents. Among these regions, the highest R0 was estimated for ‘North America’ (3.69) and lowest for ‘South America’ (2.32). We estimated a CFR of above two and a half, and the CFR varied in different continents (highest 7.11 in Africa, lowest 2.51 in Asia). We further observed lower CFR values of COVID-19 in the countries where a higher number of samples (per thousand population) were tested, and higher CFR values where the median age of the national population was higher (>38.7 years).

Our estimated overall R0 is slightly greater than WHO estimates of 1.4 to 2.5 [87] but smaller than the results of the other studies, i.e., He et al. and Alimohamadi et al. estimated R0 as 3.15 (95% CI: 2.41-3.90) and 3.32 (95% CI: 2.81 - 3.82), respectively [88,89]. Our estimation is similar to the R0 values estimated for the severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic (R0= 2–3) but greater than the Middle East respiratory syndrome in the Middle East (R0 <1) [90]. However, high R0 values tend to be estimated in the early stages of epidemics and pandemics due to small sample sizes and incomplete information. Even if the overall R0 value in a population is low, the likelihood of transmission in some subgroups of that population may still be high as the total value of R0 in a population is the average of the R0 subtypes of that community.

Our estimated value for CFR is less than the WHO reported estimate of 3.4% [91] but similar to the estimates of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) (2.3%) [92] and He et al. (2.72% with 95% CI:1.29%-4.16%) [88]. Our estimated CFR is lower than the CFR values estimated for the other severe coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic (9.6%), and the Middle East respiratory syndrome (40%) [90], but higher than that of influenza (0·1%) [93,94]. While multiple studies reported higher estimates of the case fatality rate than ours, those estimates are typically higher than the actual case fatality rate, as mild, atypical, and asymptomatic cases may not be identified (contrary to deaths), particularly in countries where access to testing is limited [95]. For example, before 11 March 2020 in the USA, sufficient, state-funded testing for all suspected cases was not available [96]. A study with 565 Japanese people who had been evacuated from Wuhan found that the number of infected people is likely to be about ten times greater than the number of registered cases. The CFR would then only be about one-tenth of that currently measured [97]. Our included studies may suffer from bias of these higher numbers of unreported cases, which could increase the pooled CFR estimation. Thus, we further estimated the CFR excluding the extreme values and the naive CFR greater than four. These gave us lower CFR values close to one.

In our estimation, the CFR varied among different regions, but the R0 did not vary significantly. We found lower CFR in the countries with a higher number of sample testing per thousand population. A higher number of testing allowed detection of more pre-/a-symptomatic and mild cases, which reduced the rate of fatal outcome [98]. We further found that countries with higher median age had higher CFR value. Older age has been recognized as one of the most common risk factors for a severe outcome of COVID-19 [99–101]. A study conducted with 5,484 patients in Italy found the CFR of COVID-19 was 0.43% for people below 70 years and 10.5% for people above 70 years and above [101]. Another study showed that an increase of 1% population aged 65 years and above increased the risk of death due to COVID-19 by 10% [100].

An estimate of R0 is affected by several factors, including the proportion of the susceptible population, population density, and awareness among people. Because SARS-COV-2 is a novel virus, we believe the proportion of the susceptible population remains the same across the world; however, other factors (density and awareness) vary. The density of the population is lower in European and North American countries compared with Asian counterparts. Thus, our estimation of the R0 for non-significant variation came as a surprise. However, the early phase of the pandemic produces incomplete data. Further studies on the R0 are essential to understand how different lockdown measures, especially face covering, social distancing, and demographic (population density) and environmental factors (temperature, humidity, UV light), affect the transmission dynamic of SARS-CoV-2 [102–105].

For developing and populated countries, the R0 value of 2.69 indicates the rapid spread of the COVID-19, and the CFR value of 2.67 is an indication of a relatively poor outcome of the treatments. Necessary precautions and strategies such as preventing mass gatherings, restricting the transportation system, and closing schools and universities should continue to prevent the outbreak of this disease until a successful vaccine arrived.

Limitations

Some of the included studies were limited in terms of sample size, missing information on the onset of COVID-19, and data availability. Therefore, the reported findings should be interpreted cautiously within that context. Furthermore, our study was limited to the articles published in the English language only. Considering the epicenter of COVID-19, Chinese literature should be included in future systematic reviews. Another important limitation is the case detection and testing heterogeneity. Countries’ responses varied, and some countries are facing difficulties in testing enough samples. Further, the quality of the testing samples also varies in different countries. All these have affected the case detection and thus impacted the R0 and CFR. However, we believe the effects are minimum, and data across the world are still comparable.

Conclusion

We estimated an R0 of 2.69 (95% CI: 2.40, 2.98) for SARS-CoV-2 and CFR of 2.67 (95% CI: 2.25, 3.13) for COVID-19 based on published literature from January to August 2020. The analysis by subgroups of regions confirmed a significant CFR variation, but the same was not found for the R0. Considering the estimated R0 and CFR values for COVID-19, implementation of the social distancing program and other non-pharmaceutical interventions are necessary steps to control the epidemic until an effective vaccine reaches to all susceptible population.

Data Availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Funding

None.

Availability of data and materials

The full list of data and the data entries for all included studies is provided in the paper (Supplementary Tables S4 and S5). No additional supporting data is available.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no potential conflict of interest regarding the publication of this work.

Ethical approval

Not required.

Acknowledgement

We acknowledge the authors of the selected research articles. NH and RK is a member of the Pan-African Network on Emerging and Re-Emerging Infections (PANDORA-ID-NET – https://www.pandora-id.net/) funded by the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP2) programme which is supported under Horizon 2020, the European Union’s Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. We also acknowledge Laura Macfarlane-Berry for reviewing and editing the manuscript and Md. Ahadur Rahman for his resource related support.

References

  1. [1].↵
    Worldometer. COVID-19 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC 2020. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ (accessed September 11, 2020).
  2. [2].↵
    Fraser C, Donnelly CA, Cauchemez S, Hanage WP, Van Kerkhove MD, Hollingsworth TD, et al. Pandemic Potential of a Strain of Influenza A (H1N1): Early Findings. Science (80-) 2009;324:1557–61. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1176062.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. [3].↵
  4. [4].↵
    Kanchan T, Kumar N, Unnikrishnan B. Mortality: Statistics. Encycl Forensic Leg Med 2016;3:572–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800034-2.00297-4.
    OpenUrl
  5. [5].↵
    Reich NG, Lessler J, Cummings DAT, Brookmeyer R. Estimating Absolute and Relative Case Fatality Ratios from Infectious Disease Surveillance Data. Biometrics 2012;68:598–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01709.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. [6].↵
    Fanelli D, Piazza F. Analysis and forecast of COVID-19 spreading in China, Italy and France. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 2020;134:109761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.109761.
    OpenUrl
  7. [7].↵
    Zhang S, Diao M, Yu W, Pei L, Lin Z, Chen D. Estimation of the reproductive number of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and the probable outbreak size on the Diamond Princess cruise ship: A data-driven analysis. Int J Infect Dis 2020;93:201–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.02.033.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. [8].↵
    Zhao S, Lin Q, Ran J, Musa SS, Yang G, Wang W, et al. Preliminary estimation of the basic reproduction number of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in China, from 2019 to 2020: A data-driven analysis in the early phase of the outbreak. Int J Infect Dis 2020;92:214–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.01.050.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. [9].↵
    Zhuang Z, Zhao S, Lin Q, Cao P, Lou Y, Yang L, et al. Preliminary estimates of the reproduction number of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Republic of Korea and Italy by 5 March 2020. Int J Infect Dis 2020;95:308–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.04.044.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. [10].↵
    Peirlinck M, Linka K, Sahli Costabal F, Kuhl E. Outbreak dynamics of COVID-19 in China and the United States. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 2020:1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-020-01332-5.
  11. [11].↵
    Kuniya T. Prediction of the Epidemic Peak of Coronavirus Disease in Japan, 2020. J Clin Med 2020;9:789. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030789.
    OpenUrl
  12. [12].↵
    Chughtai A, Malik A. Is Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) case fatality ratio underestimated? Glob Biosecurity 2020;1. https://doi.org/10.31646/gbio.56.
  13. [13].↵
    Khafaie MA, Rahim F. Cross-Country Comparison of Case Fatality Rates of COVID-19/SARS-COV-2. Osong Public Heal Res Perspect 2020;11:74–80. https://doi.org/10.24171/j.phrp.2020.11.2.03.
    OpenUrl
  14. [14].↵
    Adegboye OA, Adekunle AI, Gayawan E. Early Transmission Dynamics of Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) in Nigeria. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17:3054. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093054.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. [15].↵
    Anastassopoulou C, Russo L, Tsakris A, Siettos C. Data-based analysis, modelling and forecasting of the COVID-19 outbreak. PLoS One 2020;15:e0230405. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230405.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. [16].
    Boldog P, Tekeli T, Vizi Z, Dénes A, Bartha FA, Röst G. Risk Assessment of Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 Outbreaks Outside China. J Clin Med 2020;9:571. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9020571.
    OpenUrl
  17. [17].
    Choi S, Ki M. Estimating the reproductive number and the outbreak size of COVID-19 in Korea. Epidemiol Health 2020;42:e2020011. https://doi.org/10.4178/epih.e2020011.
    OpenUrl
  18. [18].
    Jung S, Akhmetzhanov AR, Hayashi K, Linton NM, Yang Y, Yuan B, et al. Real-Time Estimation of the Risk of Death from Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection: Inference Using Exported Cases. J Clin Med 2020;9:523. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9020523.
    OpenUrl
  19. [19].↵
    Kucharski AJ, Russell TW, Diamond C, Liu Y, Edmunds J, Funk S, et al. Early dynamics of transmission and control of COVID-19: a mathematical modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis 2020;20:553–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30144-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. [20].↵
    Li Q, Guan X, Wu P, Wang X, Zhou L, Tong Y, et al. Early transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China, of novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia. N Engl J Med 2020;382:1199–207. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2001316.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. [21].
    Riou J, Althaus CL. Pattern of early human-to-human transmission of Wuhan 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), December 2019 to January 2020. Euro Surveill 2020;25. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.4.2000058.
  22. [22].
    Russo L, Anastassopoulou C, Tsakris A, Bifulco GN, Campana EF, Toraldo G, et al. Tracing DAY-ZERO and Forecasting the Fade out of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Lombardy, Italy: A Compartmental Modelling and Numerical Optimization Approach. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.17.20037689.
  23. [23].
    Sanche S, Lin YT, Xu C, Romero-Severson E, Hengartner N, Ke R. High Contagiousness and Rapid Spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2. Emerg Infect Dis 2020;26:1470–7. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2607.200282.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. [24].↵
    Shim E, Tariq A, Choi W, Lee Y, Chowell G. Transmission potential and severity of COVID-19 in South Korea. Int J Infect Dis 2020;93:339–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.03.031.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. [25].
    Tang B, Xia F, Tang S, Bragazzi NL, Li Q, Sun X, et al. The effectiveness of quarantine and isolation determine the trend of the COVID-19 epidemics in the final phase of the current outbreak in China. Int J Infect Dis 2020;95:288–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.03.018.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. [26].
    Wu JT, Leung K, Leung GM. Nowcasting and forecasting the potential domestic and international spread of the 2019-nCoV outbreak originating in Wuhan, China: a modelling study. Lancet 2020;395:689–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30260-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. [27].
    Zhao S, Musa SS, Lin Q, Ran J, Yang G, Wang W, et al. Estimating the Unreported Number of Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Cases in China in the First Half of January 2020: A Data-Driven Modelling Analysis of the Early Outbreak. J Clin Med 2020;9:388. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9020388.
    OpenUrl
  28. [28].
    Zhu Y, Chen YQ. On a Statistical Transmission Model in Analysis of the Early Phase of COVID-19 Outbreak. Stat Biosci 2020:1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12561-020-09277-0.
  29. [29].↵
    Zhao S, Stone L, Gao D, Musa SS, Chong MKC, He D, et al. Imitation dynamics in the mitigation of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Wuhan, China from 2019 to 2020. Ann Transl Med 2020. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2020.03.168.
  30. [30].↵
    Ali M, Shah STH, Imran M, Khan A. The role of asymptomatic class, quarantine and isolation in the transmission of COVID-19. J Biol Dyn 2020;14:389–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513758.2020.1773000.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. [31].
    Deng Y, You C, Liu Y, Qin J, Zhou X. Estimation of incubation period and generation time based on observed length-biased epidemic cohort with censoring for COVID-19 outbreak in China. Biometrics 2020:biom.13325. https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.13325.
  32. [32].
    Kim S, Choi S, Ko Y, Ki M, Jung E. Risk estimation of the SARS-CoV-2 acute respiratory disease outbreak outside China. Theor Biol Med Model 2020;17:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12976-020-00127-6.
    OpenUrl
  33. [33].
    Maugeri A, Barchitta M, Battiato S, Agodi A. Estimation of Unreported Novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) Infections from Reported Deaths: A Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered-Dead Model. J Clin Med 2020;9. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9051350.
  34. [34].
    Mizumoto K, Kagaya K, Chowell G. Effect of a wet market on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) transmission dynamics in China, 2019–2020. Int J Infect Dis 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.05.091.
  35. [35].
    Pang L, Liu S, Zhang X, Tian T, Zhao Z. TRANSMISSION DYNAMICS AND CONTROL STRATEGIES OF COVID-19 IN WUHAN, CHINA. J Biol Syst 2020;28:543–60. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218339020500096.
    OpenUrl
  36. [36].
    Wan K, Chen J, Lu C, Dong L, Wu Z, Zhang L. When will the battle against novel coronavirus end in Wuhan: A SEIR modeling analysis. J Glob Health 2020;10. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.10.011002.
  37. [37].
    Wang K, Lu Z, Wang X, Li H, Li H, Lin D, et al. Current trends and future prediction of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic in China: a dynamical modeling analysis. Math Biosci Eng 2020;17:3052–61. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2020173.
    OpenUrl
  38. [38].
    Wang K, Zhao S, Liao Y, Zhao T, Wang X, Zhang X, et al. Estimating the serial interval of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) based on the public surveillance data in Shenzhen, China, from 19 January to 22 February 2020. Transbound Emerg Dis 2020:tbed.13647. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13647.
  39. [39].↵
    Wangping J, Ke H, Yang S, Wenzhe C, Shengshu W, Shanshan Y, et al. Extended SIR Prediction of the Epidemics Trend of COVID-19 in Italy and Compared With Hunan, China. Front Med 2020;7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2020.00169.
  40. [40].↵
    Zhang Y, Li Y, Wang L, Li M, Zhou X. Evaluating Transmission Heterogeneity and Super-Spreading Event of COVID-19 in a Metropolis of China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103705.
  41. [41].
    Zhao Y, Wang R, Li J, Zhang Y, Yang H, Zhao Y. Analysis of the Transmissibility Change of 2019-Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia and Its Potential Factors in China from 2019 to 2020. Biomed Res Int 2020;2020:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3842470.
    OpenUrl
  42. [42].
    Chen Z, Yang J, Dai B. Forecast Possible Risk for COVID-19 Epidemic Dissemination Under Current Control Strategies in Japan. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113872.
  43. [43].
    Khosravi A, Chaman R, Rohani-Rasaf M, Zare F, Mehravaran S, Emamian MH. The basic reproduction number and prediction of the epidemic size of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) in Shahroud, Iran. Epidemiol Infect 2020;148:e115. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268820001247.
    OpenUrl
  44. [44].
    Patel P, Athotra A, Vaisakh T, Dikid T, Jain S, Covid N. Impact of nonpharmacological interventions on COVID-19 transmission dynamics in India. Indian J Public Health 2020;64:142. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijph.IJPH_510_20.
    OpenUrl
  45. [45].
    Sardar T, Nadim SS, Rana S, Chattopadhyay J. Assessment of lockdown effect in some states and overall India: A predictive mathematical study on COVID-19 outbreak. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110078.
  46. [46].
    Xu C, Dong Y, Yu X, Wang H, Tsamlag L, Zhang S, et al. Estimation of reproduction numbers of COVID-19 in typical countries and epidemic trends under different prevention and control scenarios. Front Med 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11684-020-0787-4.
  47. [47].
    Adekunle AI, Adegboye OA, Gayawan E, McBryde ES. Is Nigeria really on top of COVID-19? Message from effective reproduction number. Epidemiol Infect 2020;148:e166. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268820001740.
    OpenUrl
  48. [48].
    de Souza WM, Buss LF, Candido D da S, Carrera JP, Li S, Zarebski AE, et al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of the COVID-19 epidemic in Brazil. Nat Hum Behav 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0928-4.
  49. [49].↵
    Di Domenico L, Pullano G, Sabbatini CE, Boëlle P-Y, Colizza V. Impact of lockdown on COVID-19 epidemic in Île-de-France and possible exit strategies. BMC Med 2020;18:240. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01698-4.
    OpenUrl
  50. [50].↵
    Feng X, Chen J, Wang K, Wang L, Zhang F, Jin Z, et al. Phase-adjusted estimation of the COVID-19 outbreak in South Korea under multi-source data and adjustment measures: a modelling study. Math Biosci Eng 2020;17:3637–48. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2020205.
    OpenUrl
  51. [51].
    Feng L-X, Jing S-L, Hu S-K, Wang D-F, Huo H-F. Modelling the effects of media coverage and quarantine on the COVID-19 infections in the UK. Math Biosci Eng 2020;17:3618–36. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2020204.
    OpenUrl
  52. [52].
    Linka K, Peirlinck M, Kuhl E. The reproduction number of COVID-19 and its correlation with public health interventions. Comput Mech 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-020-01880-8.
  53. [53].
    Lonergan M, Chalmers JD. Estimates of the ongoing need for social distancing and control measures post-“lockdown” from trajectories of COVID-19 cases and mortality. Eur Respir J 2020;56:2001483. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01483-2020.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. [54].↵
    Munayco C V., Tariq A, Rothenberg R, Soto-Cabezas GG, Reyes MF, Valle A, et al. Early transmission dynamics of COVID-19 in a southern hemisphere setting: Lima-Peru: February 29th-March 30th, 2020. MedRxiv Prepr Serv Heal Sci 2020;5:338–45. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.30.20077594.
    OpenUrl
  55. [55].↵
    Cai Q, Huang D, Ou P, Yu H, Zhu Z, Xia Z, et al. COVID-19 in a designated infectious diseases hospital outside Hubei Province, China. Allergy 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.14309.
  56. [56].↵
    Hoseinpour Dehkordi A, Alizadeh M, Derakhshan P, Babazadeh P, Jahandideh A. Understanding epidemic data and statistics: A case study of COVID-19. J Med Virol 2020;92:868–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25885.
    OpenUrl
  57. [57].
    Han H, Xie L, Liu R, Yang J, Liu F, Wu K, et al. Analysis of heart injury laboratory parameters in 273 COVID-19 patients in one hospital in Wuhan, China. J Med Virol 2020;92:819–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25809.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. [58].
    Leung K, Wu JT, Liu D, Leung GM. First-wave COVID-19 transmissibility and severity in China outside Hubei after control measures, and second-wave scenario planning: a modelling impact assessment. Lancet 2020;395:1382–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30746-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. [59].
    Mei Y, Hu J. Preparedness is Essential for Western Pacific Islands During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Disaster Med Public Health Prep 2020:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2020.102.
  60. [60].
    Mi Y, Huang T, Zhang J, Qin Q, Gong Y, Liu S, et al. Estimating the instant case fatality rate of COVID-19 in China. Int J Infect Dis 2020;97:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.04.055.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. [61].↵
    Medina MA. Preliminary Estimate of COVID-19 Case Fatality Rate in the Philippines using Linear Regression Analysis. SSRN Electron J 2020. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3569248.
  62. [62].↵
    Mizumoto K, Chowell G. Estimating risk for death from coronavirus disease, China, January-February 2020. Emerg Infect Dis 2020;26:1251–6. https://doi.org/10.3201/EID2606.200233.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. [63].
    Javed A. Case Fatality Rate estimation of COVID-19 for European Countries: Turkey’s Current Scenario Amidst a Global Pandemic; Comparison of Outbreakswith European Countries. Eurasian J Med Oncol 2020;4:149–56. https://doi.org/10.14744/ejmo.2020.60998.
    OpenUrl
  64. [64].
    Porcheddu R, Serra C, Kelvin D, Kelvin N, Rubino S. Similarity in Case Fatality Rates (CFR) of COVID-19/SARS-COV-2 in Italy and China. J Infect Dev Ctries 2020;14:125–8. https://doi.org/10.3855/jidc.12600.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  65. [65].
    Russell TW, Hellewell J, Jarvis CI, van Zandvoort K, Abbott S, Ratnayake R, et al. Estimating the infection and case fatality ratio for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) using age-adjusted data from the outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, February 2020. Euro Surveill Bull Eur Sur Les Mal Transm = Eur Commun Dis Bull 2020;25. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.12.2000256.
  66. [66].
    Verity R, Okell LC, Dorigatti I, Winskill P, Whittaker C, Imai N, et al. Estimates of the severity of coronavirus disease 2019: a model-based analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2020;20:669–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30243-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. [67].
    Yang S, Cao P, Du P, Wu Z, Zhuang Z, Yang L, et al. Early estimation of the case fatality rate of COVID-19 in mainland China: a data-driven analysis. Ann Transl Med 2020;8:128–128. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2020.02.66.
    OpenUrl
  68. [68].
    Yuan J, Li M, Lv G, Lu ZK. Monitoring transmissibility and mortality of COVID-19 in Europe. Int J Infect Dis 2020;95:311–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.03.050.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  69. [69].
    Mahajan P, Kaushal J. Epidemic Trend of COVID-19 Transmission in India During Lockdown-1 Phase. J Community Heal 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-020-00863-3.
  70. [70].
    Semenova Y, Glushkova N, Pivina L, Khismetova Z, Zhunussov Y, Sandybaev M, et al. Epidemiological Characteristics and Forecast of COVID-19 Outbreak in the Republic of Kazakhstan. J Korean Med Sci 2020. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e227.
  71. [71].↵
    Gupta S, Kumar Patel K, Sivaraman S, Mangal A. Global Epidemiology of First 90 Days into COVID-19 Pandemic: Disease Incidence, Prevalence, Case Fatality Rate and Their Association with Population Density, Urbanisation and Elderly Population. J Health Manag 2020;22:117–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972063420932762.
    OpenUrl
  72. [72].↵
    Dil S, Dil N, Maken ZH. COVID-19 Trends and Forecast in the Eastern Mediterranean Region With a Particular Focus on Pakistan. Cureus 2020. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.8582.
  73. [73].
    Deng X, Yang J, Wang W, Wang X, Zhou J, Chen Z, et al. Case fatality risk of the first pandemic wave of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China. Clin Infect Dis 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa578.
  74. [74].
    Lam HY, Lam TS, Wong CH, Lam WH, Leung CME, Au KWA, et al. The epidemiology of COVID-19 cases and the successful containment strategy in Hong Kong–January to May 2020. Int J Infect Dis 2020;98:51–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.057.
    OpenUrl
  75. [75].
    Abdollahi E, Champredon D, Langley JM, Galvani AP, Moghadas SM. Temporal estimates of case-fatality rate for COVID-19 outbreaks in Canada and the United States. CMAJ 2020. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.200711.
  76. [76].
    Munayco C, Chowell G, Tariq A, Undurraga EA, Mizumoto K. Risk of death by age and gender from CoVID-19 in Peru, March-May, 2020. Aging (Albany NY) 2020. https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.103687.
  77. [77].
    la Hoz-Restrepo F de, Alvis-Zakzuk NJ, la Hoz-Gomez JF De, la Hoz-Gomez A De, Corral LG Del, Alvis-Guzmán N. Is Colombia an example of successful containment of the COVID-19 2020 pandemic? A critical analysis of the epidemiological data. March to July 2020. Int J Infect Dis 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.08.017.
  78. [78].
    Kammar-García A, Vidal-Mayo J de J, Vera-Zertuche JM, Lazcano-Hernández M, Vera-López O, Segura-Badilla O, et al. IMPACT OF COMORBIDITIES IN MEXICAN SARS-COV-2-POSITIVE PATIENTS: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS IN A NATIONAL COHORT. Rev Invest Clin 2020;72:151–8. https://doi.org/10.24875/RIC.20000207.
    OpenUrl
  79. [79].
    Hauser A, Counotte MJ, Margossian CC, Konstantinoudis G, Low N, Althaus CL, et al. Estimation of SARS-CoV-2 mortality during the early stages of an epidemic: A modeling study in Hubei, China, and six regions in Europe. PLOS Med 2020;17:e1003189. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003189.
    OpenUrl
  80. [80].
    Segovia-Juarez J, Castagnetto JM, Gonzales GF. High altitude reduces infection rate of COVID-19 but not case-fatality rate. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2020;281:103494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resp.2020.103494.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  81. [81].↵
    Qian J, Zhao L, Ye R-Z, Li X-J, Liu Y-L. Age-dependent gender differences of COVID-19 in mainland China: comparative study. Clin Infect Dis 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa683.
  82. [82].↵
    Shim E, Mizumoto K, Choi W, Chowell G. Estimating the Risk of COVID-19 Death During the Course of the Outbreak in Korea, February-May 2020. J Clin Med 2020;9. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061641.
  83. [83].
    Khose S, Moore JX, Wang HE. Epidemiology of the 2020 Pandemic of COVID-19 in the State of Texas: The First Month of Community Spread. J Community Health 2020;45:696–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-020-00854-4.
    OpenUrl
  84. [84].
    Hassan MM, El Zowalaty ME, Khan SA, Islam A, Nayem MRK, Järhult JD. Role of Environmental Temperature on the Attack rate and Case fatality rate of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic. Infect Ecol Epidemiol 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008686.2020.1792620.
  85. [85].↵
    Khamis F, Al Rashidi B, Al-Zakwani I, Al Wahaibi AH, Al Awaidy ST. Epidemiology of COVID-19 Infection in Oman: Analysis of the First 1304 Cases. Oman Med J 2020;35:e145–e145. https://doi.org/10.5001/omj.2020.60.
    OpenUrl
  86. [86].↵
    Hoy D, Brooks P, Woolf A, Blyth F, March L, Bain C, et al. Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:934–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. [87].↵
    Liu Y, Gayle AA, Wilder-Smith A, Rocklöv J. The reproductive number of COVID-19 is higher compared to SARS coronavirus. J Travel Med 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taaa021.
  88. [88].↵
    He W, Yi GY, Zhu Y. Estimation of the basic reproduction number, average incubation time, asymptomatic infection rate, and case fatality rate for COVID-19: Meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis. J Med Virol 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.26041.
  89. [89].↵
    Alimohamadi Y, Taghdir M, Sepandi M. Estimate of the Basic Reproduction Number for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Prev Med Public Heal 2020;53:151–7. https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.20.076.
    OpenUrl
  90. [90].↵
    The Lancet Infectious Diseases. MERS--an uncertain future. Lancet Infect Dis 2015;15:1115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00324-2.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  91. [91].↵
    WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 3 March 2020. World Heal Organ n.d. https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---3-march-2020 (accessed June 3, 2020).
  92. [92].↵
    Epidemiology Working Group for NCIP Epidemic Response Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The epidemiological characteristics of an outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus diseases (COVID-19) in China. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi 2020;41:145–51. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2020.02.003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. [93].↵
    De Wit E, van Doremalen N, Falzarano D, Munster VJ. SARS and MERS: Recent insights into emerging coronaviruses. Nat Rev Microbiol 2016;14:523–34. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2016.81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. [94].↵
    Fauci AS, Lane HC, Redfield RR. Covid-19 - Navigating the uncharted. N Engl J Med 2020;382:1268–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe2002387.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. [95].↵
    German Network for Evidence-based Medicine. COVID-19: Where’s the evidence? Berlin: 2020.
  96. [96].↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/testing-in-us.html (accessed June 27, 2020).
  97. [97].↵
    Nishiura H, Kobayashi T, Yang Y, Hayashi K, Miyama T, Kinoshita R, et al. The Rate of Underascertainment of Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Infection: Estimation Using Japanese Passengers Data on Evacuation Flights. J Clin Med 2020;9:419. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9020419.
    OpenUrl
  98. [98].↵
    Liang L-L, Tseng C-H, Ho HJ, Wu C-Y. Covid-19 mortality is negatively associated with test number and government effectiveness. Sci Rep 2020;10:12567. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68862-x.
    OpenUrl
  99. [99].↵
    Rhodes J, Dunstan F, Laird E, Subramanian S, Kenny RA. COVID-19 mortality increases with northerly latitude after adjustment for age suggesting a link with ultraviolet and vitamin D. BMJ Nutr Prev Heal 2020;3:118–20. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjnph-2020-000110.
    OpenUrl
  100. [100].↵
    Haider N, Yavlinsky A, Chang Y-M, Hasan MN, Benfield C, Osman AY, et al. The Global Health Security index and Joint External Evaluation score for health preparedness are not correlated with countries’ COVID-19 detection response time and mortality outcome. Epidemiol Infect 2020;148:e210. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268820002046.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  101. [101].↵
    Poletti P, Tirani M, Cereda D, Trentini F, Guzzetta G, Marziano V, et al. Age-specific SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality ratio and associated risk factors, Italy, February to April 2020. Eurosurveillance 2020;25. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.31.2001383.
  102. [102].↵
    Bukhari Q, Jameel Y. Will Coronavirus Pandemic Diminish by Summer? SSRN Electron J 2020. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3556998.
  103. [103].
    Silberstein M. Vitamin D: A simpler alternative to tocilizumab for trial in COVID-19? Med Hypotheses 2020;140:109767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2020.109767.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  104. [104].
    University of Cambridge. Seasonal immunity: Activity of thousands of genes differs from winter to summer. ScienceDaily 2015. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150512112356.htm (accessed June 26, 2020).
  105. [105].↵
    Jüni P, Rothenbühler M, Bobos P, Thorpe KE, da Costa BR, Fisman DN, et al. Impact of climate and public health interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective cohort study. Can Med Assoc J 2020;192:E566–73. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.200920.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
Posted September 30, 2020.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Estimation of novel coronavirus (covid-19) reproduction number and case fatality rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Tanvir Ahammed, Aniqua Anjum, Mohammad Meshbahur Rahman, Najmul Haider, Richard Kock, Md. Jamal Uddin
medRxiv 2020.09.30.20204644; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.30.20204644
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area