Diana Buitrago‐García

BACKGROUND: There is disagreement about the level of asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We conducted a living systematic review and meta-analysis to address three questions: (1) Amongst people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) Amongst people with SARS-CoV-2 infection who are asymptomatic when diagnosed, what proportion will develop symptoms later? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is accounted for by people who are either asymptomatic throughout infection or presymptomatic? METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv using a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature that is updated daily, on 25 March 2020, 20 April 2020, and 10 June 2020. Studies of people with SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed by reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) that documented follow-up and symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up or modelling studies were included. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with an adapted checklist for case series, and the relevance and credibility of modelling studies were assessed using a published checklist. We included a total of 94 studies. The overall estimate of the proportion of people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 and remain asymptomatic throughout infection was 20% (95% confidence interval [CI] 17-25) with a prediction interval of 3%-67% in 79 studies that addressed this review question. There was some evidence that biases in the selection of participants influence the estimate. In seven studies of defined populations screened for SARS-CoV-2 and then followed, 31% (95% CI 26%-37%, prediction interval 24%-38%) remained asymptomatic. The proportion of people that is presymptomatic could not be summarised, owing to heterogeneity. The secondary attack rate was lower in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection than those with symptomatic infection (relative risk 0.35, 95% CI 0.10-1.27). Modelling studies fit to data found a higher proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 infections resulting from transmission from presymptomatic individuals than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the review include that most included studies were not designed to estimate the proportion of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections and were at risk of selection biases; we did not consider the possible impact of false negative RT-PCR results, which would underestimate the proportion of asymptomatic infections; and the database does not include all sources. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this living systematic review suggest that most people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 will not remain asymptomatic throughout the course of the infection. The contribution of presymptomatic and asymptomatic infections to overall SARS-CoV-2 transmission means that combination prevention measures, with enhanced hand hygiene, masks, testing tracing, and isolation strategies and social distancing, will continue to be needed.

BACKGROUND: A false-negative case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is defined as a person with suspected infection and an initial negative result by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, with a positive result on a subsequent test. False-negative cases have important implications for isolation and risk of transmission of infected people and for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to review and critically appraise evidence about the rate of RT-PCR false-negatives at initial testing for COVID-19. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, as well as COVID-19 repositories, including the EPPI-Centre living systematic map of evidence about COVID-19 and the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database. Two authors independently screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria and collected data from the included studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We calculated the proportion of false-negative test results using a multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model. The certainty of the evidence about false-negative cases was rated using the GRADE approach for tests and strategies. All information in this article is current up to July 17, 2020. RESULTS: We included 34 studies enrolling 12,057 COVID-19 confirmed cases. All studies were affected by several risks of bias and applicability concerns. The pooled estimate of false-negative proportion was highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity (tau-squared = 1.39; 90% prediction interval from 0.02 to 0.54). The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial and largely unexplained heterogeneity in the proportion of false-negative RT-PCR results. The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-Cov-2 infection given that up to 54% of COVID-19 patients may have an initial false-negative RT-PCR (very low certainty of evidence). SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol available on the OSF website: https://tinyurl.com/vvbgqya.

ABSTRACT Background A false-negative case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV- 2) infection is defined as a person with suspected infection and an initial negative result by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, with a positive result on a subsequent test. False-negative cases have important implications for isolation and risk of transmission of infected people and for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to review and critically appraise evidence about the rate of RT-PCR false-negatives at initial testing for COVID-19. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, as well as COVID-19 repositories including the EPPI-Centre living systematic map of evidence about COVID-19 and the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database. Two authors independently screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria and collected data from the included studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We calculated the proportion of false-negative test results with the corresponding 95% CI using a multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model. The certainty of the evidence about false- negative cases was rated using the GRADE approach for tests and strategies. All information in this article is current up to July 17, 2020. Results We included 34 studies enrolling 12,057 COVID-19 confirmed cases. All studies were affected by several risks of bias and applicability concerns. The pooled estimate of false-negative proportion was highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity (tau-squared= 1.39; 90% prediction interval from 0.02 to 0.54). The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low, due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues. Conclusions There is a substantial and largely unexplained heterogeneity in the proportion of false-negative RT-PCR results. The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection given that up to 54% of COVID-19 patients may have an initial false-negative RT-PCR (certainty of evidence: very low). An update of this review when additional studies become available is warranted. Systematic review registration Protocol available on the OSF website: https://osf.io/gp38w/

BACKGROUND: Exposure to armed conflict has been associated with negative mental health consequences. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of generalised anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder among migrants exposed to armed conflict. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched online databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, LILACS, PsycInfo [via Ovid], PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection) for relevant observational studies published between Jan 1, 1994, and June 28, 2021. We included studies that used standardised psychiatric interviews to assess generalised anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorder among migrants (refugees or internally displaced persons; aged ≥18 years) with pre-migration exposure to armed conflict. We excluded studies in which exposure to armed conflict could not be ascertained, studies that included a clinical population or people with chronic diseases that can trigger the onset of mental disease, and studies published before 1994. We used a random effects model to estimate each mental health disorder's pooled prevalence and random effects meta-regression to assess sources of heterogeneity. Two independent reviewers assessed the risk of bias for each study using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence Studies. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020209251. FINDINGS: Of the 13 935 studies identified, 34 met our inclusion criteria; these studies accounted for 15 549 migrants. We estimated a prevalence of current post-traumatic stress disorder of 31% (95% CI 23-40); prevalence of current major depressive disorder of 25% (17-34); and prevalence of generalised anxiety disorder of 14% (5-35). Younger age was associated with a higher prevalence of current post-traumatic stress disorder (odds ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·90-0·99]), lifetime post-traumatic stress disorder (0·88 [0·83-0·92]), and current generalised anxiety disorder (0·87 [0·78-0·97]). A longer time since displacement was associated with a lower lifetime prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (0·88 [0·81-0·95]) and major depressive disorder (0·81 [0·77-0·86]). Migrating to a middle-income (8·09 [3·06-21·40]) or low-income (39·29 [11·96-129·70]) country was associated with increased prevalence of generalised anxiety disorder. INTERPRETATION: Migrants who are exposed to armed conflict are at high risk of mental health disorders. The mental health-care needs of migrants should be assessed soon after resettlement, and adequate care should be provided, with particular attention paid to young adults. FUNDING: Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (Horizon 2020-COFUND), MinCiencias (Colombia), and Swiss National Science Foundation.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND There is disagreement about the level of asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We conducted a living systematic review and meta-analysis to address three questions: 1. amongst people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? 2. Amongst people with SARS-CoV-2 infection who are asymptomatic when diagnosed, what proportion will develop symptoms later? 3. What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is accounted for by people who are either asymptomatic throughout infection, or pre-symptomatic? METHODS AND FINDINGS We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv and medRxiv using a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature that is updated daily, on 25 March 2020, 20 April 2020 and 10 June 2020. Studies of people with SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed by reverse transcriptase PCR that documented follow-up and symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or modelling studies were included. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with an adapted checklist for case series and the relevance and credibility of modelling studies were assessed using a published checklist. We included a total of 94 studies. The overall estimate of the proportion of people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 and remain asymptomatic throughout infection was 20% (95% CI 17-25) with a prediction interval of 3-67% in 79 studies that addressed this review question. There was some evidence that biases in the selection of participants influence the estimate. In seven studies of defined populations screened for SARS-CoV-2 and then followed, 31% (95% CI 26-37%, prediction interval 24-38%) remained asymptomatic. The proportion of people that is pre-symptomatic could not be summarised, owing to heterogeneity. The secondary attack rate was slightly lower in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection than those with symptomatic infection (relative risk 0.35, 95% CI 0.10-1.27). Modelling studies fit to data found a higher proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 infections resulting from transmission from pre-symptomatic individuals than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the review include that most included studies were not designed to estimate the proportion of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections and were at risk of selection biases, we did not consider the possible impact of false negative RT-PCR results, which would underestimate the proportion of asymptomatic infections, and that the database does not include all sources. CONCLUSIONS The findings of this living systematic review of publications early in the pandemic suggest that most SARS-CoV-2 infections are not asymptomatic throughout the course of infection. The contribution of pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic infections to overall SARS-CoV-2 transmission means that combination prevention measures, with enhanced hand hygiene, masks, testing tracing and isolation strategies and social distancing, will continue to be needed. AUTHOR SUMMARY Why was this study done? ▪ The proportion of people who will remain asymptomatic throughout the course of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19), is not known. ▪ Studies that assess people at just one time point will overestimate the proportion of true asymptomatic infection because those who go on to develop covid-19 symptoms will be wrongly classified as asymptomatic, rather than pre-symptomatic. ▪ The amount, and infectiousness, of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection will determine what kind of measures will prevent transmission most effectively. What did the researchers do and find? ▪ We did a living systematic review through 10 June 2020, using automated workflows that speed up the review processes, and allow the review to be updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. ▪ Overall, in 79 studies in a range of different settings, 20% (95% confidence interval, CI 17–25%) of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection remained asymptomatic during follow-up, but biases in study designs limit the certainty of this estimate. ▪ We found some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection is less likely than in contacts of people with symptomatic infection (relative risk 0.35, 95% CI 0.10-1.27). What do these findings mean? ▪ The findings of this living systematic review suggest that most SARS-CoV-2 infections are not asymptomatic throughout the course of infection. ▪ Future studies should be designed specifically to determine the true proportion of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, using methods to minimise biases in the selection of study participants and ascertainment of symptom status during follow up. ▪ The contribution of pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic infections to overall SARS-CoV-2 transmission means that combination prevention measures, with enhanced hand hygiene, masks, testing tracing and isolation strategies and social distancing, will continue to be needed. Changes from version 2 ▪ Search updated 10.06.2020, total number of included studies increased from 37 to 94 ▪ Protocol updated at https://osf.io/9ewys/ ▪ New analyses Review question 1, prediction intervals added for each study setting Meta-analysis of secondary attack rate from asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic index cases compared with symptomatic Sensitivity analysis for review question 1, omitting preprints ▪ Conclusions unchanged