Border closure and travel restrictions to control the spread of COVID-19: an update to a Cochrane review
========================================================================================================

* Ahmed M. Abou-Setta
* Otto LT Lam
* Viraj Kasireddy
* Nicole Askin
* Andrea C. Tricco

## Abstract

**Background** COVID-19 has proven to be more difficult to manage for many reasons including its high infectivity rate. One of the potential ways to limit its spread is by limiting free travel across borders, including via air travel. The objective of this systematic review is to identify, critically-appraise and summarize evidence on border closures and travel restrictions.

**Methods** This review is based on the Cochrane review: “International travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic” and followed the same methodology. In brief, we searched for clinical and modelling studies in general health and COVID-19-specific bibliographic databases. The primary outcome categories were (i) cases avoided, (ii) cases detected, and (iii) a shift in epidemic development. Secondary outcomes were other infectious disease transmission outcomes, healthcare utilisation, resource requirements and adverse effects if identified in studies assessing at least one primary outcome.

**Results** We included 43, mostly modelling, studies that met our inclusion criteria. Fourteen new studies were identified in the updated search, as well as updated companions (e.g., peer-reviewed publications that were previously only available as pre-prints). Most studies were of moderate to high quality. The added studies did not change the main conclusions of the Cochrane review nor the quality of the evidence (very low to low certainty). However, it did add to the evidence base for most outcomes.

**Conclusions** Weak evidence supports the use of border closures to limit the spread of COVID-19 via air travel. Real-world studies are required to support these conclusions.

Key words
*   Coronavirus disease 2019
*   COVID-19
*   SARS-CoV-2
*   border
*   transmission
*   systematic review

## Background

In humans, coronaviruses may cause respiratory infections ranging from the common cold to severe disease. The 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), the 2012 Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) are all notable pandemics caused by coronaviruses.

COVID-19 has proven to be more difficult to manage, compared to previous epidemics, for many reasons including its high infectivity rate. The mean reproductive number (R), which represents the speed of spread or transmissibility, of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) has been estimated to be around 3.28,1 which is higher than that for SARS (1.7–1.9) and MERS (<1).2

To combat the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, governments and public health organizations/ officials have implemented polices to decrease the disease spread including border closures and travel restrictions. A recent Cochrane review3 showed that there was little evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of such policies.

The objective of this systematic review is to identify, critically-appraise and summarize evidence on border closures and travel restrictions to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 transmission between countries and regions.

## Methods

As this is an update to a Cochrane review,3 we conducted this review according to guidelines enumerated in the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR), and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.4 We included randomized trials, non-randomized trials, observational studies, and modelling studies on the effects of travel related control measures affecting human travel during the COVID 19 pandemic. The interventions for this review were border closure and travel restrictions to control the spread of COVID-19. The non-randomized, observational, and modelling studies could be single arm or with a control group, including but not limited to prospective or retrospective cohort studies, case-controlled studies, cross-sectional studies, interrupted time series, or mathematical modelling studies. Modelling studies could use a theoretical comparison. We excluded case reports/ series, opinion papers, editorials, study protocols and trial registries.

The primary outcome categories were (i) cases avoided, (ii) cases detected, and (iii) a shift in epidemic development. Secondary outcomes were other infectious disease transmission outcomes, healthcare utilisation, resource requirements and adverse effects if identified in studies assessing at least one primary outcome.

### Search strategy for identification of studies

The Cochrane review3 search was adapted by excluding terms not related to COVID-19 (e.g., MERS, H1N1, SARS01) and an updated search conducted from Nov 2020 to Jun 2021 without any language restrictions. The search was conducted in general health and COVID-19-specific bibliographic databases [PubMed (NLM), Cochrane Covid ([https://covid-19.cochrane.org/](https://covid-19.cochrane.org/)), Medrxiv ([https://connect.Medrxiv.org/relate/content/181](https://connect.Medrxiv.org/relate/content/181)), and BioRXiv. We conducted searches in general purpose databases (e.g., Google), government and public health websites (e.g., WHO), preprint servers ([arxiv.org](http://arxiv.org)) and news outlets for additional unpublished or grey literature. Each database was searched using an individualized search strategy. Finally, the reference lists of relevant narrative and systematic reviews and included studies were hand-searched for relevant citations. We performed reference management in EndNote™ (version X9, Thomson Reuters, Carlsbad, CA, USA).

### Study selection

We used a two-stage process for study screening and selection using standardized and piloted screening forms. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of search results to determine if a citation met the inclusion criteria. Full texts of all included citations were reviewed independently, and in duplicate. All conflicts were resolved through discussion, consensus or by a third researcher, as required.

### Data abstraction and management

One reviewer summarized the findings from included study reports, and a second researcher reviewed the summaries for accuracy and completeness. Discrepancies between the two reviewers were resolved by discussion and consensus. Data management was performed using Microsoft Excel™ 2010 (Excel version 14, Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA).

### Assessment of methodological quality and potential risk of bias

Evidence from modelling studies was assessed using the tools proposed by Jaime Caro et al., 2014.5 Nonrandomized comparative studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

### Data summary

All data is summarized narratively and in tabular format.

## Results

From 4,462 unique citations, we included 43 studies that met our inclusion criteria (Figure 1). In addition to the 31 studies6–36 previously identified by the Cochrane review,3 in the updated search, we identified 12 new studies37–48 that met the inclusion criteria; of which five studies were specific to air travel restrictions/ bans39, 40, 44, 45, 48 and seven were general travel restrictions/ bans, including air travel.37, 38, 41–43, 46, 47

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/F1)

Figure 1. 
PRISMA Flow Diagram.

### Study designs

We included 35 modelling studies6–36, 40, 42, 43, 48 of which four studies40, 42, 43, 48 were identified in the updated search. One of the newly included studies was a nonrandomized comparative study.38 Neither the Cochrane review3 nor the updated search identified any additional observational studies.

### Quality appraisal

None of the included modelling studies fulfilled all the quality appraisal items; all had moderate to major concerns. Fifty-seven percent of the studies (n = 24) fulfilled (i.e., no to minor concerns) at least 50% of the items. The most concerns were regarding internal validation: “Has the internal validation process been described?”, “Has the model been shown to be internally valid?” and “Was technical documentation, in sufficient detail to allow (potentially) for replication, made available openly or under agreements that protect intellectual property?”. The quality assessments for the included studies are summarized in Table 3 and 4, with individual study assessment for the studies identified in the updated search presented in Appendix 1.

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T1)

Table 1. 
Study characteristics of studies identified in the updated search.

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T2)

Table 2. 
Study characteristics of studies identified in the original Cochrane review.

View this table:
[Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T3)

Table 3. 
Outcomes of studies identified in the updated search.

View this table:
[Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T4)

Table 4. 
Quality assessment of modelling studies identified in the updated search.

For the nonrandomized comparative study,38 the individual quality assessment domains are presented in Table 5. Overall, this study received 6 out of 8 stars, making it of good quality.

View this table:
[Table 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T5)

Table 5. 
Quality assessment of nonrandomized studies identified in the updated search.

View this table:
[Table 6.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T6)

Table 6. 
Quality assessment of modelling studies identified in the original Cochrane review.

### Travel restrictions reducing or stopping cross-border travel

Similar to the Cochrane review,3 we did not attempt to differentiate between a complete border closure versus travel restrictions (leading to varying degrees of difficulty in crossing borders), and instead report these in a combined intervention category. Studies reported on (1) ‘cases avoided due to the measure’ (n = 30),6–10, 12–14, 16, 18–21, 23–25, 28, 29, 32–39, 41, 42, 46, 47 (2) the shift in epidemic development (n = 19),8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 31, 36, 40, 42, 44, 45, 48 (3) cases detected due to the measure (n = 3),43, 46, 48 and (4) secondary outcomes (n = 1).19 The newly identified studies add to the body of the evidence, but do not change the conclusions of the Cochrane review;3 usually positive direction of effect with travel restrictions/ border closures (low to very low-certainty evidence).

#### 1. Cases avoided due to the measure

This outcome is subclassified into: View this table:
[Table7](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T7)

1.  Number or proportion of cases in the community
    
    Five new studies37, 38, 41, 42, 47 was identified in the updated search. In total, we included 17 modelling studies,7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 25, 33, 35–38, 41, 42, 47 with most (n = 13) reporting fewer new cases (1.8%10 to 97.8%18) with travel restrictions; four studies25, 33, 36, 37 reported no significant positive effect (very low certainty evidence).

2.  Number or proportion of imported or exported cases
    
    Three new studies38, 39, 46 were identified in the updated search. In total, we included 12 modelling studies,6, 8, 12–14, 20, 23, 28, 32, 38, 39, 46 with most (n = 11) reporting decreased cases (18%20 to 99%12 reductions) with travel restrictions; one study6 reported mixed results (very low certainty evidence).

3.  Number or proportion of cases seeded by imported cases
    
    No studies were identified by the Cochrane review3 or in the updated search.

4.  Probability of an imported case not infecting anyone
    
    No studies were identified by the Cochrane review3 or in the updated search.

5.  Number or proportion of deaths
    
    No new studies were identified in the updated search. The Cochrane review3 identified three modelling studies10, 14, 19 with all reporting decreased deaths (4.3%10 to 98%14) with travel restrictions (very low certainty evidence).

6.  Risk of importation or exportation
    
    No new studies were identified in the updated search. The Cochrane review3 identified three modelling studies.24, 29, 34 Two studies24, 34 reported decreased risk with travel restrictions; however, no direct effect estimates were reported. One study29 reported mixed results (very low certainty evidence); lessening restrictions led to an increased risk of importation at some airports, but a decreased risk at other airports.

7.  Proportion of secondary cases
    
    No studies were identified by the Cochrane review3 or in the updated search.

#### 2. Shift in epidemic development

This outcome is subclassified into: View this table:
[Table8](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T8)

1.  Probability of eliminating the epidemic
    
    No new studies were identified in the updated search. The Cochrane review3 identified one modelling study10 reporting mixed results (very low-certainty evidence).

2.  Effective reproduction number (Rt)
    
    One new study40 was identified in the updated search. In total, we included three modelling studies,21, 30, 40 with most (n = 2) reporting benefit with travel restrictions; one study30 reported mixed results (dependent on the severity of the border closures) (very low-certainty evidence).
    
    The newest-identified study40 reported a beneficial change under a low reproduction number (Ro) of 1.4. The border control measure would have reduced 90% of the passenger numbers and gained an extra 32.5 days of outbreak arrival time. The effect of border control was weaker under a medium Ro (1.68); nevertheless, it still resulted in 20.0 extra days under the same control level. However, under a high Ro (2.92), only 10 extra days were obtained.

3.  Time to outbreak
    
    Four new studies18, 44, 45, 48 were identified in the updated search. In total, we included 10 modelling studies,8, 15, 17, 18, 22, 26, 36, 44, 45, 48 with most reporting benefits (e.g., <1 day8 to 26 weeks48) with travel restrictions; three studies17, 36, 44 reported mixed results (very low-certainty evidence).

4.  Risk of an outbreak
    
    No new studies were identified in the updated search. The Cochrane review3 identified two modelling studies8,11 with one study8 reporting benefits (1% to 37%) with travel restrictions, while the second study11 reported mixed results (very low-certainty evidence).

5.  Number or proportion of cases at peak
    
    No new studies were identified in the updated search. The Cochrane review3 identified two modelling studies;10, 17 one study17 reported benefits with travel restrictions (0.3% to 8% at peak) and the other study10 reported that an early implementation of border restrictions or a delayed border closure would lead to 79 (95% CI 67 to 97) and 91 (95% CI 77 to 110) daily cases at the epidemic peak, respectively (low-certainty evidence).

6.  Median time to peak
    
    One new study42 was identified in the updated search. This modelling study42 assessed the time to peak which equalled 31 days from the first death reported in each country, with a comparable mean (31.32 ± 13.94 days) (low-certainty evidence). In the multivariate analysis, border closure day was significantly associated with time to peak deaths (0.297).

7.  Epidemic curve peak
    
    One new study14 was identified in the updated search. This modelling study14 assessed that travel restrictions will delay the epidemic curve about 50 days in time (low-certainty evidence).

8.  Epidemic growth acceleration
    
    No new studies were identified in the updated search. The Cochrane review3 identified one modelling study31 reporting benefits from travel restrictions (−6.05% change) (low-certainty evidence).

9.  Exportation growth rate
    
    No new studies were identified in the updated search. The Cochrane review3 identified one modelling study27 reporting benefits from travel restrictions (within China) (low-certainty evidence).

#### 3. Cases detected due to the measure

This outcome is subclassified into: View this table:
[Table9](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T9)

1.  Days at risk of transmission
    
    No studies were identified by the Cochrane review3 or in the updated search.

2.  Number or proportion of cases detected
    
    Two new modelling studies43, 48 were identified in the updated search. These studies reported mixed effects in terms of the proportion of cases detected. The first study43 investigated the effect of international travel restrictions by difference in policy levels between the government and agent in 216 countries. It was found that earlier agent lockdowns (when compared to government lockdown policy) were associated with a more rapid acceleration in cases. In contrast, earlier government closure of the border compared to the agent was not necessarily associated with a slower acceleration of cases. These results indicated that local transmission may have a greater effect on disease burden compared to imported cases.
    
    The second study48 assessed the effect of border control policies, in combination with internal measures (model with built-in imported risk and [1-tier] contact tracing). The curve remained flattened in G2 countries, provided that there was a sufficient confining domestic control policy (R<1 without the imported cases) and that the imported risk was not increasing over time. In a scenario in which two G2 entities had completely open borders toward each other and no quarantine or screening policies, both entities experienced decreasing numbers of cases, similarly to the use of a closed border policy. Both entities were also able to withstand the risk of importation and maintain a decreasing trend for the number of newly identified cases and hospitalized patients over time if the number of infected people upon arrival was doubled. This conclusion could not be made for a G2 entity that opened its border to a G3 entity. The effort of the G2 entity to contain the COVID-19 outbreak was jeopardized by increasing the number of imported cases from G3. Additional border control policies would be required for travelers from G3 entities. Therefore, individual measures when implemented alone may not be able to avoid another lock down within half a year if vaccines are still not widely deployed. However, the combination of pre-departure screening with test- and-isolate and/or self-quarantine may be sufficient for risk management. Even without any border controls towards multiple G2 and G3 entities (at a constant rate of 1000 imported cases per week), a G2 entity would be able to keep infections under control (albeit at a relatively high level of 14000 new cases per week or 2000 new cases per day).

3.  Positive predictive value (PPV)
    
    No studies were identified by the Cochrane review3 or in the updated search.

4.  Probability of releasing an infected individual into the community
    
    One study was identified in the updated search.46 This study investigated the effects of a travel ban for non-Hong Kong residents from overseas and testing and quarantine for those permitted to travel. The results indicated that tightening travel measures to 21-day quarantine reduced the risk of releasing infectious travellers to 0 for all examined countries or regions.

#### 4. Secondary outcomes

This outcome is subclassified into: View this table:
[Table10](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T10)

1.  Infectious disease transmission outcomes
    
    No studies were identified by the Cochrane review3 or in the updated search.

2.  Healthcare utilisation
    
    No new studies were identified in the updated search. The Cochrane review3 identified one modelling study19 reporting benefits from travel restrictions on secondary outcomes related to healthcare utilisation. They showed that border closures alone, while beneficial, can not prevent hospitals from eventually reaching their capacity.

3.  Resource requirements
    
    No studies were identified by the Cochrane review3 or in the updated search.

4.  Adverse effects (if identified in studies assessing at least one primary outcome)
    
    No studies were identified by the Cochrane review3 or in the updated search.

## Conclusions

In addition to the 31 studies identified by the Cochrane review, we identified 12 additional studies, mostly modelling studies (e.g., simulated border closures), that compared the effectiveness of limiting travel as a measure to reduce the spread of COVID-19. The added studies did not change the main conclusions of the Cochrane review nor the quality of the evidence (very low to low certainty). However, it did add to the evidence base for most outcomes and provided evidence for ‘reproduction number’ and ‘number or proportion of cases detected’ that were not available in the Cochrane review3. Due to the nature of GRADEing the certainty of the evidence, it is unlikely that more studies will change the quality of the evidence.

In conclusion, weak evidence supports the use of border closures to limit the spread of COVID-19 from region to regions. Real-world studies are required to support these conclusions.

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.

## Appendix 1. Details for quality assessment decisions

### 1. Gankin, Infect Genet Evol, 2021

View this table:
[Table11](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T11)

### 2. Han, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2021

View this table:
[Table12](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T12)

### 3. Hossain, Epidemics, 2020

View this table:
[Table13](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T13)

### 4. Ip, Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2021

View this table:
[Table14](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T14)

### 5. Jablonska, medRxiv, 2021

View this table:
[Table15](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T15)

### 6. Kwak, PloS one, 2021

View this table:
[Table16](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T16)

### 7. Sun, Transp Res Part A Policy Pract, 2021

View this table:
[Table17](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T17)

### 8. Yang, Emerg Infect Dis, 2021

View this table:
[Table18](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T18)

### 9. Yang, Lancet Reg Health West Pac, 2021

View this table:
[Table19](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T19)

### 10. Yu, Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2021

View this table:
[Table20](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T20)

### 11. Zhu, Travel medicine and infectious disease, 2021

View this table:
[Table21](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/25/2022.01.22.22269686.1/T21)

## Footnotes

*   **Funding sources:** World Health Organization and SPOR Evidence Alliance

*   Received January 22, 2022.
*   Revision received January 25, 2022.
*   Accepted January 25, 2022.


*   © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission.

## References

1.  1.Liu Y, Gayle AA, Wilder-Smith A, Rocklov J. The reproductive number of COVID-19 is higher compared to SARS coronavirus. J Travel Med. Mar 2020;27(2).
    
    

2.  2.Petrosillo N, Viceconte G, Ergonul O, Ippolito G, Petersen E. COVID-19, SARS and MERS: are they closely related? Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2020;26(6):729–734.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/14651858.CD013582&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32315451&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F01%2F25%2F2022.01.22.22269686.1.atom) 

3.  3.Burns J, Movsisyan A, Stratil JM, et al. Travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2020;2020(9).
    
    

4.  4.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE1OiIzNzIvbWFyMjlfMi9uNzEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MjoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wMS8yNS8yMDIyLjAxLjIyLjIyMjY5Njg2LjEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

5.  5.Jaime Caro J, Eddy DM, Kan H, et al. Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value in health: the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Mar 2014;17(2):174–182.
    
    

6.  6.Adekunle A, Meehan M, Rojas-Alvarez D, Trauer J, McBryde E. Delaying the COVID-19 epidemic in Australia: evaluating the effectiveness of international travel bans. Australian and New Zealand journal of public health. Aug 2020;44(4):257–259.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/1753-6405.13016&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F01%2F25%2F2022.01.22.22269686.1.atom) 

7.  7.Anderson SC, Mulberry N, Edwards AM, et al. How much leeway is there to relax COVID-19 control measures? Epidemics. 2021/06/01/ 2021;35:100453.
    
    

8.  8.Anzai A, Kobayashi T, Linton NM, et al. Assessing the Impact of Reduced Travel on Exportation Dynamics of Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19). J Clin Med. 2020;9(2):601.
    
    

9.  9.Banholzer N, van Weenen E, Lison A, et al. Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the number of new infections with COVID-19 during the first epidemic wave. PLOS ONE. 2021;16(6):e0252827.
    
    

10. 10.Binny RN, Baker MG, Hendy SC, et al. Early intervention is the key to success in COVID-19 control. Royal Society open science. Nov 2021;8(11):210488.
    
    

11. 11.Boldog P, Tekeli T, Vizi Z, Dénes A, Bartha FA, Röst G. Risk Assessment of Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 Outbreaks Outside China. Journal of clinical medicine. Feb 19 2020;9(2).
    
    

12. 12.Chen T, Huang S, Li G, et al. Quantitative Effects of Entry Restrictions and Travel Quarantine on the Next Wave of COVID-19: Case Studies of China and Singapore. SSRN. 2020.
    
    

13. 13.Chinazzi M, Davis JT, Ajelli M, et al. The effect of travel restrictions on the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. Science (New York, N.Y.). Apr 24 2020;368(6489):395-400.
    
    

14. 14.Costantino V, Heslop DJ, MacIntyre CR. The effectiveness of full and partial travel bans against COVID-19 spread in Australia for travellers from China during and after the epidemic peak in China. J Travel Med. 2020;27(5):taaa081.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jtm/taaa081&link_type=DOI) 

15. 15.Davis JT, Chinazzi M, Perra N, et al. Estimating the establishment of local transmission and the cryptic phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA. medRxiv. 2020:2020.2007.2006.20140285.
    
    

16. 16.Deeb OE, Jalloul M. The dynamics of COVID-19 spread: evidence from Lebanon. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering. 2020;17(5):5618–5632.
    
    

17. 17.Grannell JJ, Grannell JR. A Two-Region SEIR COVID-19 Epidemic Model for the Island of Ireland. *medRxiv.* 2020:2020.2010.2031.20223727.
    
    

18. 18.Kang N, Kim B. The Effects of Border Shutdowns on the Spread of COVID-19. J Prev Med Public Health. 2020;53(5):293–301.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3961/jpmph.20.332&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F01%2F25%2F2022.01.22.22269686.1.atom) 

19. 19.Kwok W-C, Wong C-K, Ma T-F, et al. Modelling the impact of travel restrictions on COVID-19 cases in Hong Kong in early 2020. BMC Public Health. 2021/10/18 2021;21(1):1878.
    
    

20. 20.Liebig J, Najeebullah K, Jurdak R, Shoghri AE, Paini D. Should international borders re-open? The impact of travel restrictions on COVID-19 importation risk. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1573-1573.
    
    

21. 21.Linka K, Peirlinck M, Kuhl E. The reproduction number of COVID-19 and its correlation with public health interventions. Comput Mech. 2020a:1–16.
    
    

22. 22.Linka K, Rahman P, Goriely A, Kuhl E. Is it safe to lift COVID-19 travel bans? The Newfoundland story. Comput Mech. 2020b:1–12.
    
    

23. 23.McLure A, Lau CL, Furuya-Kanamori L. Has the effectiveness of Australia’s travel bans against China on the importation of COVID-19 been overestimated? J Travel Med. 2021;28(2):taaa191.
    
    

24. 24.Nakamura H, Managi S. Airport risk of importation and exportation of the COVID-19 pandemic. Transp Policy (Oxf*).* 2020;96:40–47.
    
    

25. 25.Nowrasteh A, Forrester AC. How US Travel Restrictions on China Affected the Spread of COVID-19 in the United States. JSTOR; 2020.
    
    

26. 26.Odendaal WG. A Method to Model Outbreaks of New Infectious Diseases with Pandemic Potential such as COVID-19. medRxiv. 2020:2020.2003.2011.20034512.
    
    

27. 27.Pinotti F, Di Domenico L, Ortega E, et al. Tracing and analysis of 288 early SARS-CoV-2 infections outside China: A modeling study. PLoS Med. 2020;17(7):e1003193–e1003193.
    
    

28. 28.Russell TW, Wu JT, Clifford S, et al. Effect of internationally imported cases on internal spread of COVID-19: a mathematical modelling study. Lancet Public Health. 2021;6(1):e12–e20.
    
    

29. 29.Shi S, Tanaka S, Ueno R, et al. Travel restrictions and SARS-CoV-2 transmission: an effective distance approach to estimate impact. Bull World Health Organ. 2020;98(8):518–529.
    
    

30. 30.Sruthi CK, Biswal MR, Saraswat B, Joshi H, Prakash MK. How Policies on Restaurants, Bars, Nightclubs, Masks, Schools, and Travel Influenced Swiss COVID-19 Reproduction Ratios. *medRxiv.* 2020:2020.2010.2011.20210641.
    
    

31. 31.Utsunomiya YT, Utsunomiya ATH, Torrecilha RBP,  Paulan SdC, Milanesi M, Garcia JF. Growth Rate and Acceleration Analysis of the COVID-19 Pandemic Reveals the Effect of Public Health Measures in Real Time. Front Med (Lausanne*).* 2020;7:247–247.
    
    

32. 32.Wells CR, Sah P, Moghadas SM, et al. Impact of international travel and border control measures on the global spread of the novel 2019 coronavirus outbreak. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(13):7504–7509.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiMTE3LzEzLzc1MDQiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MjoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wMS8yNS8yMDIyLjAxLjIyLjIyMjY5Njg2LjEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

33. 33.Yang T, Liu Y, Deng W, Zhao W, Deng J. SARS-Cov-2 trajectory predictions and scenario simulations from a global perspective: a modelling study. Scientific reports. 2020;10(1):18319–18319.
    
    

34. 34.Zhang L, Yang H, Wang K, Zhan Y, Bian L. Measuring imported case risk of COVID-19 from inbound international flights \---| A case study on China. J Air Transp Manag. 2020;89:101918–101918.
    
    

35. 35.Zhang C, Qian L-X, Hu J-Q. COVID-19 Pandemic with Human Mobility Across Countries. Journal of the Operations Research Society of China. 2021/06/01 2021;9(2):229-244.
    
    

36. 36.Zhong L, Diagne M, Wang W, Gao J. Country distancing increase reveals the effectiveness of travel restrictions in stopping COVID-19 transmission. Communications Physics. 2021/06/04 2021;4(1):121.
    
    

37. 37.Gankin Y, Nemira A, Koniukhovskii V, et al. Investigating the first stage of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ukraine using epidemiological and genomic data. Infection, genetics and evolution: journal of molecular epidemiology and evolutionary genetics in infectious diseases. Nov 2021;95:105087.
    
    

38. 38.Gwee SXW, Chua PEY, Wang MX, Pang J. Impact of travel ban implementation on COVID-19 spread in Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea during the early phase of the pandemic: a comparative study. BMC infectious diseases. Aug 11 2021;21(1):799.
    
    

39. 39.Han X, Xu Y, Fan L, Huang Y, Xu M, Gao S. Quantifying COVID-19 importation risk in a dynamic network of domestic cities and international countries. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Aug 3 2021;118(31).
    
    

40. 40.Hossain MP, Junus A, Zhu X, et al. The effects of border control and quarantine measures on the spread of COVID-19. Epidemics. 2020;32:100397.
    
    

41. 41.Ip RHL, Demskoi D, Rahman A, Zheng L. Evaluation of COVID-19 Mitigation Policies in Australia Using Generalised Space-Time Autoregressive Intervention Models. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Jul 13 2021;18(14).
    
    

42. 42.Jabło ska K, Aballéa S, Toumi M. Factors influencing the COVID-19 daily deaths peak acrosńs European countries. *medRxiv.* 2021:2020.2011.2004.20225656.
    
    

43. 43.Kwak GH, Ling L, Hui P. Deep reinforcement learning approaches for global public health strategies for COVID-19 pandemic. PloS one. 2021;16(5):e0251550.
    
    

44. 44.Sun X, Wandelt S, Zhang A. Delayed reaction towards emerging COVID-19 variants of concern: Does history repeat itself? *Transportation research. Part A*, Policy and practice. Oct 2021;152:203–215.
    
    

45. 45.Yang B, Sullivan SG, Du Z, Tsang TK, Cowling BJ. Effectiveness of International Travel Controls for Delaying Local Outbreaks of COVID-19. Emerging infectious diseases. Oct 13 2021;28(1).
    
    

46. 46.Yang B, Tsang TK, Wong JY, et al. The differential importation risks of COVID-19 from inbound travellers and the feasibility of targeted travel controls: A case study in Hong Kong. The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific. Aug 2021;13:100184.
    
    

47. 47.Yu Z, Zhu X, Liu X, et al. Reopening International Borders without Quarantine: Contact Tracing Integrated Policy against COVID-19. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Jul 14 2021;18(14).
    
    

48. 48.Zhu Z, Weber E, Strohsal T, Serhan D. Sustainable border control policy in the COVID-19 pandemic: A math modeling study. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2021;41:102044.