key: cord-0981407-sr8p9ahp authors: Buitrago-Garcia, D.; Ipekci, A. M.; Heron, L.; Imeri, H.; Araujo-Chaveron, L.; Arevalo-Rodriguez, I.; Ciapponi, A.; Cevik, M.; Hauser, A.; Alam, M. I.; Meili, K.; Meyerowitz, E. A.; Prajapati, N.; Qiu, X.; Richterman, A.; Robles-Rodriguez, W. G.; Thapa, S.; Zhelyazkov, I.; Salanti, G.; Low, N. title: Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: a living systematic review and meta-analysis date: 2022-01-30 journal: nan DOI: 10.1101/2022.01.20.22269581 sha: dd0559a8a3a89fb0c1c8ffc94583e8f31a7b7854 doc_id: 981407 cord_uid: sr8p9ahp BACKGROUND Debate about the level of asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues. The amount of evidence is increasing and study designs have changed over time. We conducted a living systematic review 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) What is the infectiousness of asymptomatic and presymptomatic, compared with symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a population is accounted for by people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic? METHODS AND FINDINGS The protocol was first published on 1 April 2020 and last updated on 18 June 2020. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 2 February 2021. Studies of people with PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2, which documented symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or mathematical modelling studies were included. Studies restricted to people already diagnosed, of single individuals or families, or without sufficient follow-up were excluded. 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 a bespoke checklist and modelling studies with a published checklist. All data syntheses were done using random effects models. Review question (1): We included 94 studies. Heterogeneity was high and we could not reliably estimate values for the proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range 13-45%, prediction interval 2-89%), or in studies based on screening of defined populations (interquartile range 18-59%, prediction interval 3-95%). In screening studies at low risk of information bias, the prediction interval was 4-69% (summary proportion 23%, 95% CI 14-35%). In 40 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 18% (95% CI 14-24%, prediction interval 3-64%) and, in studies at low risk of selection bias, 25% (95% CI 18-33%, prediction interval 5-66%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.43 (95% CI 0.05-3.44, 5 studies). (3) In 11 modelling studies fit to data, the proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic individuals was higher than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the evidence include high heterogeneity in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, high risks of selection and information bias, and the absence of studies about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS This review does not provide a summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 across all study designs. In studies based on contact and outbreak investigation, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme. Without prospective longitudinal studies with methods that minimise selection and measurement biases, further updates with the study types included in this living systematic review are unlikely to be able to provide a reliable summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic infections caused by wild-type SARS-CoV-2. proportion of the variability between estimates due to study differences other than chance [15] . 126 Sources of heterogeneity are often not explored in detail, however, with infrequent reporting of 127 prediction intervals [9, 10], even though they give information about all between-study variability 128 and show the range of estimates that would be expected in future studies [15] . In this fourth update 129 of our living systematic review [10] we aimed to improve and understand the changing evidence Methods 136 We conducted a living systematic review, a systematic review that provides an online summary of 137 findings and is updated when relevant new evidence becomes available [16] . The protocol, which 138 describes modifications for each update, was first published on 1 April 2020 and amended for this 139 version on 18 June 2020, (https://osf.io/9ewys/). Previous versions of the review have been posted 140 as preprints [17] and published as a peer-reviewed article [10] . We report our findings according to 141 statements on preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses 2020 (S1 PRISMA 142 2020 Checklist) [18] and on synthesis without meta-analysis in systematic reviews (SWiM) [19] . 143 Ethics committee review was not required for this review. Box 1 shows our definitions of symptoms, 144 asymptomatic infection and presymptomatic status. 145 Symptoms: symptoms that a person experiences and reports. We used the authors' definitions. We searched included manuscripts for an explicit statement that the study participant did not report symptoms that they experienced. Some authors defined 'asymptomatic' as an absence of self-reported symptoms. We did not include clinical signs observed or elicited on examination. Asymptomatic infection: a person with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, who has no symptoms, according to the authors' report, at the time of first clinical assessment and had no symptoms at the end of follow-up. The end of follow-up was defined as any of the following: . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 30, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.20.22269581 doi: medRxiv preprint virological cure, with one or more negative RT-PCR test results; follow-up for 14 days or more after the last possible exposure to an index case; follow-up for seven days or more after the first RT-PCR positive result. Presymptomatic: a person with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, who has no symptoms, according to the authors' report, at the time of first clinical assessment, but who developed symptoms by the end of follow-up. The end of follow-up was defined as any of the following: virological cure, with one or more negative RT-PCR test results; follow-up for 14 days or more after the last possible exposure to an index case; follow-up for seven days or more after the first RT-PCR positive result. Information sources and search 147 We conducted the first search on 25 March 2020 and updated it on 20 April 2020, 10 June 2020 and 148 2 February 2021. We searched the COVID-19 living evidence database [20] , which uses automated 149 workflow processes to: (1) provide daily updates of searches of four electronic databases (Medline, 150 PubMed, Ovid Embase, bioRxiv and medRxiv), using medical subject headings and free-text 151 keywords for SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19; (2) de-duplicate the records; (3) tag records that 152 are preprints; and (4) allow searches of titles and abstracts using Boolean operators. We used the 153 search function to identify studies of asymptomatic or presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection using a 154 search string of medical subject headings and free text keywords (S1 Text). We also examined 155 articles suggested by experts and the reference lists of retrieved studies. Reports were planned to be 156 updated at 3-monthly intervals, with continuously updated searches. 157 Eligibility criteria 158 We included studies, in any language, of people with SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed by RT-PCR that 159 documented follow-up and symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up or investigated 160 the contribution to SARS-CoV-2 transmission of asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection. We 161 included contact tracing and outbreak investigations, cohort studies, case-control studies, and 162 mathematical modelling studies. We amended eligibility criteria in the protocol for this update in 163 two ways. First, we excluded studies that only reported the proportion of presymptomatic SARS-164 CoV-2 because the settings and methods of these studies were very different and their results were 165 too heterogeneous to summarise [10] . Second, we aimed to reduce the risk of bias from studies with 166 inclusion criteria based mainly on people with symptoms, which would systematically underestimate 167 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 30, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.20.22269581 doi: medRxiv preprint the proportion of people with asymptomatic infection. We therefore excluded the following study 168 types: case series restricted to people already diagnosed and studies that did not report the number 169 of people tested for SARS-CoV-2, from whom the study population was derived. We also excluded 170 case reports and contact investigations of single individuals or families, and any study without 171 sufficient follow-up (Box 1). Where data from the same study population were reported in multiple 172 records, we extracted data from the most comprehensive report. 173 Study selection and data extraction 174 Reviewers worked in pairs to screen records using an application programming interface in the 175 electronic data capture system (REDCap, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA). One reviewer 176 applied eligibility criteria to select studies and a second reviewer verified all included and excluded 177 studies. We reported the process in a flow diagram, adapted for living systematic reviews [21] (S1 178 Fig) . The reviewers determined which of the three review questions each study addressed. One 179 reviewer extracted data using a pre-piloted extraction form in REDCap and a second reviewer 180 verified the extracted data. For both study selection and data extraction, a third reviewer 181 adjudicated on disagreements that could not be resolved by discussion. We contacted study authors 182 for clarification where the study description was insufficient to determine eligibility or if reported 183 data in the manuscript were internally inconsistent. The extracted variables included, study design, 184 country and/or region, study setting, population, age, sex, primary outcomes and length of follow-up 185 (full list of variables in S1 Form). We extracted raw numbers of individuals with an outcome of 186 interest and relevant denominators from empirical studies. From statistical and mathematical 187 modelling studies we extracted proportions and 95% credibility intervals. 188 The primary outcomes for each review question were (1) the proportion of people with 189 asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection who did not experience symptoms at all during follow-up; (2) 190 secondary attack rate from asymptomatic or presymptomatic index cases, compared with 191 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint Synthesis of the evidence 205 The data extracted from the included studies and the code used to display and synthesise the results 206 are publicly available: https://github.com/leonieheron/LSR_Asymp_v4. We used the metaprop and 207 metabin functions from the meta package (version 4.11-0) [26] and the ggplot2 package (version 208 3.3.5) in R (version 3.5.1) to display the study findings in forest plots and synthesise their results, 209 where appropriate. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each study were estimated using the 210 Clopper-Pearson method [27] . For review question 1, in studies that identified participants through 211 investigation of contacts or in outbreak investigations, we subtracted the index cases from the total 212 number of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection, because these people were likely to have been 213 identified because of their symptoms and their inclusion might lead to underestimation of the 214 asymptomatic proportion [14] . For all meta-analyses, we used stratified random effects models. 215 Where a meta-analysis was not done, we present the interquartile range (IQR) and describe 216 heterogeneity visually in forest plots, ordered by study sample size [19] . For statistical examination 217 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 30, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.20.22269581 doi: medRxiv preprint of heterogeneity, we calculated the I 2 statistic, which is the approximate proportion of between-218 study variability that is due to heterogeneity other than chance and τ 2 , the between-study variance, 219 which is used to generate the 95% prediction interval for the likely range of proportions that would 220 be obtained in subsequent studies conducted in similar settings [15] . The protocol pre-specified 221 subgroup analyses according to study design, setting and risk of bias. We did a χ 2 test to compare 222 subgroups of studies assessed as being at low risk of bias in each domain versus those of unclear or 223 high risk of bias of bias and between studies assessed as being at low risk of bias in all domains with 224 those at unclear or high risk of bias in any domain. In additional analyses, we examined studies with 225 at least ten cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and according to publication date. To compare our 226 findings with other studies, we extracted the raw data from three large systematic reviews [12-14] 227 and calculated prediction intervals. For review question 2, as a measure of infectiousness, we 228 calculated the secondary attack rate as the number of SARS-CoV-2-infected contacts as a proportion 229 of all close contacts ascertained. For each included study, we compared the secondary attack rate 230 from asymptomatic or presymptomatic index cases with that from symptomatic cases in the same 231 study. If there were no events in a group, we added 0.5 to each cell in the 2x2 table. We did not 232 account for potential clustering of contacts because the included studies did not report the number 233 and size of infection clusters consistently. We used the Hartung-Knapp method for random effects 234 meta-analysis to estimate a summary risk ratio (with 95% CI) [28] . For review question 3, we 235 reported the findings descriptively because of large differences between study settings, methods 236 and results. We did not construct funnel plots to examine bias across studies because their utility in 237 studies reporting on proportions is not clear. 238 The searches for studies about asymptomatic or presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2, on 25 March, 20 April is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint tracing studies or outbreak investigations, 39 screening studies, and four mathematical models (S1 246 Table) . This review version included a total of 107 studies addressing one or more objectives; 94 247 empirical studies that estimate the proportion of people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 248 (summarised in Table 1 and S2 Table) (Table 255 1). Thirty-two studies, including 9,121 infected people, were done in the United States (S3 Table) Table) . is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 30, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.20.22269581 doi: medRxiv preprint main types of study design generated the study populations of people with SARS-CoV-2: contact 270 tracing or outbreak investigation methods were used to identify and test potentially infected 271 contacts (40 studies, referred to as contact and outbreak investigations); and studies that involved 272 screening of a defined group of people in settings in the community, institutions, such as long-term 273 care facilities, or occupational groups (54 studies, referred to as screening studies). 274 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint screening studies (Fig 1) . The IQR of estimates for all 94 included studies was 13-45% and the 279 prediction interval from random-effects meta-analysis was 2-89% (S2 Fig). In studies enrolling people 280 found through contact or outbreak investigations, for example in long-term care facilities, in 281 aeroplanes, or on cruise ships, we estimated a summary estimate for the proportion asymptomatic 282 (18%, 95% CI 14-24%, prediction interval 3-64%, There were risks of bias in all types of empirical studies (S4 Fig). In pre-specified subgroup analyses 296 according to risk of bias domains (Table 2) , statistical heterogeneity remained very high (I 2 ≥ 84%) 297 and the prediction intervals remained wide. In contact and outbreak investigations, the estimated 298 proportion of asymptomatic individuals was associated with the risk of selection bias. In studies 299 judged to be at low risk, 25% (95% CI 18-33%, prediction interval 5-66%) and 13% (95% CI 8-20%, 300 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 30, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.20.22269581 doi: medRxiv preprint prediction interval 1-61%) in studies at unclear or high risk of bias (p=0.02 from χ 2 test for subgroup 301 differences). In screening studies, heterogeneity was lower in studies judged to be at low risk of 302 information bias in the assessment of symptoms (p>0.01, test for subgroup differences), with a 303 summary estimate of the proportion asymptomatic of 23% (95% CI 14-35%, prediction interval 4-304 69%). Only nine studies were judged to be at low risk of bias in all domains, with some evidence of 305 reduced heterogeneity (p=0.05, test for subgroup differences). For all other domains, estimates of 306 heterogeneity were not associated with the assessment of the risk of bias. 307 308 When restricted to studies with more than ten people with SARS-CoV-2 infection (S5 Fig), the 309 estimated proportions with asymptomatic infection were very similar to the overall estimates (Fig 1, 310 Table 2). The estimates of the proportion asymptomatic in the three periods of publication date 311 were similar (S6 Fig, S7 Fig). In the three systematic reviews that we re-analysed, prediction intervals between 94% and 99% (S4 Table) . 314 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint Infectiousness of people with asymptomatic or presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Five of the studies that conducted detailed contact investigations provided enough data to calculate 318 a secondary attack rate according to the symptom status of the index cases and to compare the 319 secondary attack rates by symptom status (Fig 2) [119, 129, 138-140 Contribution of asymptomatic and presymptomatic infection to SARS-CoV-2 to transmission 329 We included 11 mathematical modelling studies (Fig 4) transmission of asymptomatic infection of less than 10%. One study estimated a higher proportion 340 (69%, 95% CrI 20-85%) with a wide credibility interval [55] (Fig 4) . The estimates have large 341 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 30, 2022. Table) . is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 30, 2022. Comparison with other reviews and interpretation 391 The type of studies that provide estimates of the proportion of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections 392 and heterogeneity between them has changed over the course of the pandemic. In our living 393 systematic review, the prediction interval has widened from 23-37% in studies published up to 25 394 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint follow-up [9, 11, 14] . In two reviews of studies published up to mid-2020, authors also applied 397 inclusion criteria to reduce the risks of selection bias, with summary estimates of 18% (95% CI 9-398 26%, I 2 84%, 9 studies) [11] and 23% (95% CI 16-30%, I 2 92%, 21 studies) [9] . In both reviews, many 399 included studies used designs that we defined as contact or outbreak investigations (Fig 1, S2 Table) . analysis might be precise, but are likely to be unreliable owing to unacceptably high levels of 407 heterogeneity. In the three largest systematic reviews, other than ours, authors provided overall 408 estimates with narrow confidence intervals [12] [13] [14] . I 2 values were 94-99%, describing heterogeneity 409 other than that due to chance, but prediction intervals, which show the extent of all between-study 410 variability were not reported [15] . The prediction intervals that we calculated extended more or less 411 from zero to 100%, making the summary estimates, and any differences in estimates between these 412 studies, uninterpretable. We expected this update to our living systematic review to provide a more is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 30, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.20.22269581 doi: medRxiv preprint asymptomatic infection in screening studies (Table 2) . Studies in which a wide range of possible 421 COVID-19 symptoms are assessed frequently will classify more people as having symptoms than 422 studies with a limited symptom list. Studies based on contact and outbreak investigations might 423 obtain more detailed data about symptoms, resulting in lower estimates of the proportion that is 424 classified as asymptomatic. Selection bias affected studies based on contact and outbreak 425 investigations more than screening studies, however. These studies include people identified mainly 426 through contact tracing and differential inclusion of contacts with symptoms might underestimate 427 the true proportion of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2. Age might play a role as children appear more 428 likely than adults to have an asymptomatic course of infection, but age was poorly reported in 429 studies included in this review (Table 1) . 430 The analysis of secondary attack rates in this update provides some evidence of lower infectiousness 431 of people with asymptomatic than symptomatic infection, but the small number of studies and wide 432 confidence intervals are compatible with both no difference in transmissibility or higher 433 transmissibility (Fig 2) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 30, 2022. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 30, 2022. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 30, 2022. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 30, 2022. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 30, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.20.22269581 doi: medRxiv preprint . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 30, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.20.22269581 doi: medRxiv preprint . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 30, 2022. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 30, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.20.22269581 doi: medRxiv preprint Towards an accurate and 498 systematic characterisation of persistently asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 Covid-19: four fifths of cases are asymptomatic, China figures indicate COVID-19: in the footsteps of Ernest Shackleton Estimating the generation 598 interval for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) based on symptom onset data Clinical characteristics of 24 asymptomatic 602 infections with COVID-19 screened among close contacts in Nanjing Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 606 COVID-19 in adolescents and young adults. medRxiv Estimating the asymptomatic proportion of 612 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship Estimation of the 616 asymptomatic ratio of novel coronavirus infections (COVID-19) Non-severe vs severe 622 symptomatic COVID-19: 104 cases from the outbreak on the cruise ship 'Diamond Princess' in Japan Pregnancy 629 Outcomes Among Women With and Without Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 630 Infection The 634 prevalence of asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 in a cohort of quarantined subjects Characteristics, risk factors and outcomes among the first consecutive 1096 patients diagnosed with 639 COVID-19 in Kuwait CoV-2 Infection Among Post-Quarantine Healthcare Workers Clinical outcomes 652 of COVID-19 in long-term care facilities for people with epilepsy Universal testing for severe 656 acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in 2 Philadelphia hospitals: carrier prevalence and 657 symptom development over 2 weeks CoV-2 Testing in Patients With Cancer Treated at a Tertiary Care Hospital During the COVID-19 Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 670 before and after symptom onset: impact of nonpharmaceutical interventions in China Time Length of 678 Negativization and Cycle Threshold Values in 182 Healthcare Workers with Covid-19 in Milan, Italy: 679 An Observational Cohort Study Community 683 Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Disproportionately Affects the 684 Latinx Population During Shelter-in-Place in San Francisco Prolonged 688 persistence of PCR-detectable virus during an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 in an inpatient geriatric 689 psychiatry unit in King County, Washington changes to community point prevalence around lockdown time The contribution of 698 asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections to transmission on the Diamond Princess cruise ship Prospective 706 observational study and serosurvey of SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic healthcare workers at 707 a Canadian tertiary care center Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Homeless Shelters in Open Forum Infect Dis COVID-19 testing in 716 outbreak-free care homes: what are the public health benefits? Transmission of 720 SARS-COV-2 Infections in Households -Tennessee and Wisconsin Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome 725 Coronavirus 2 among Asymptomatic Workers Screened for Work Resumption Control of a Nosocomial 729 Outbreak of COVID-19 in a University Hospital Maternal, fetal and 733 neonatal outcomes of large series of SARS-CoV-2 positive pregnancies in peripartum period: A single-734 center prospective comparative study Asymptomatic Healthcare Personnel for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2. Emerg 739 Infect Dis Infections Among Children in the Biospecimens from Respiratory Virus-Exposed Kids Epub 2020/09/11 Postexposure Testing of Asymptomatic Contacts of COVID-19 Patients to Evaluate Early Release from 747 Quarantine -Vermont An Outbreak of 751 Covid-19 on an Aircraft Carrier Clinical Profile and 759 Outcome of COVID -19 in Children with Pre-Existing Renal Disease Screening Testing for SARS-CoV-2 upon Admission to Rehabilitation Hospitals in a High Outbreak of COVID-19 at 767 three nursing homes in Bergen SARS-CoV-2 Screening Test 770 for Japanese Returnees From Wuhan, China Epidemiological and clinical 779 characteristics of coronavirus disease SARS-CoV-791 2 and RT-PCR in asymptomatic patients: Results of a cohort of workers at El Dorado International 792 Airport in Bogota Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 RNA Testing Among Residents and Staff in a Large Group 797 of Care Homes in South London Serial 814 Laboratory Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Incarcerated and Detained Persons in a 815 Correctional and Detention Facility -Louisiana A 828 cluster of COVID-19 in pilgrims to Israel Clinical Features of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Hemodialysis Patients COVID-19) in Americans Aboard the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Screening Using Reverse Transcriptase-Quantitative 845 Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 infection at a large 850 refugee shelter in Toronto A 858 COVID-19 Outbreak in a Rheumatology Department Upon the Early Days of the Pandemic. Front 859 Med (Lausanne) Effective control of SARS-CoV-2 863 transmission in Wanzhou, China Risk Factors, Presentation, and Course of 866 Coronavirus Disease 2019 in a Large, Academic Long-Term Care Facility Testing for SARS-CoV-2 in 870 care home staff and residents in English care homes: A service evaluation. medRxiv. 2020 99. Tan-Loh J, Cheong BMK. A descriptive analysis of clinical characteristics of COVID-19 among 882 healthcare workers in a district specialist hospital The rate of SARS-CoV-2 885 positivity in asymptomatic pregnant women admitted to hospital for delivery: Experience of a 886 pandemic center in Turkey CoV-2 and Virus Whole Genome Sequencing Inform Infection Risk at Two Skilled Nursing Facilities 891 with COVID-19 Outbreaks -Minnesota SARS-CoV-2 895 infection and transmission in school settings during the second COVID-19 wave: a cross-sectional 896 study Evidence for 900 transmission of COVID-19 prior to symptom onset Asymptomatic Cases and Limited Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Residents and Healthcare Workers 905 in Three Dutch Nursing Homes Are presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in nursing home residents unrecognised symptomatic 910 infections? Sequence and metadata from weekly testing in an extensive nursing home outbreak COVID-19 in pediatric 914 kidney transplantation: The Improving Renal Outcomes Collaborative SARS-CoV-2 918 screening of asymptomatic women admitted for delivery must be performed with a combination of 919 microbiological techniques: an observational study Identification of 923 Presymptomatic and Asymptomatic Cases Using Cohort-Based Testing Approaches at a Large 924 Correctional Facility Asymptomatic and Presymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection 929 Rates in a Multistate Sample of Skilled Nursing Facilities Response System for and Epidemiological 933 Features of COVID-19 in Gyeongsangnam-do Province in South Korea COVID-19 Outbreak in an 937 Urban Hemodialysis Unit A Prospective Cohort 941 Study in Nonhospitalized Household Contacts With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 942 2 Infection: Symptom Profiles and Symptom Change Over Time Symptoms and 946 Critical Illness Among Obstetric Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Infection Epidemiology and transmission of COVID-19 in 954 391 cases and 1286 of their close contacts in Shenzhen, China: a retrospective cohort study Investigation of 958 a COVID-19 outbreak in Germany resulting from a single travel-associated primary case: a case 959 series Symptoms and immunoglobulin development in hospital staff exposed to a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 966 RNA Detected in Blood Donations Contact Tracing Assessment of 970 COVID-19 Transmission Dynamics in Taiwan and Risk at Different Exposure Periods Before and After 971 Symptom Onset Cluster of 975 coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) in the French Alps Universal and Serial 979 Laboratory Testing for SARS-CoV-2 at a Long-Term Care Skilled Nursing Facility for Veterans -Los 980 SARS-CoV-2 infection, 984 clinical features and outcome of COVID-19 in United Kingdom nursing homes Transmission from Presymptomatic Meeting Attendee CoV-2 Infection in Returning Travelers from Wuhan, China 996 Suppression of a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in the Italian municipality of Vo' 1000 Characteristics of 1573 healthcare workers who underwent nasopharyngeal swab testing for SARS-1001 The Relationship 1005 between Status at Presentation and Outcomes among Pregnant Women with COVID-19 Contact Settings and Risk for Transmission in 1009 3410 Close Contacts of Patients With COVID-19 in Screening of 1019 healthcare workers for SARS-CoV-2 highlights the role of asymptomatic carriage in COVID-19 1020 transmission First 1023 Reported Nosocomial Outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in a Pediatric 1024 Epidemiological investigation and 1028 intergenerational clinical characteristics of 24 coronavirus disease patients associated with a 1029 supermarket cluster: a retrospective study COVID-19: 1033 PCR screening of asymptomatic health-care workers at London hospital High proportion 1036 of asymptomatic and presymptomatic COVID-19 infections in travelers and returning residents to 1037 Brunei In-flight transmission cluster of COVID-1043 19: a retrospective case series Secondary Transmission of Coronavirus 1046 Disease from Presymptomatic Persons Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 1050 Transmission in Different Settings Modes of contact and risk of 1054 transmission in COVID-19 among close contacts Transmission onset distribution of COVID-19 Individual quarantine versus 1063 active monitoring of contacts for the mitigation of COVID-19: a modelling study Estimating the presymptomatic transmission of COVID19 using incubation period 1067 and serial interval data Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions2019 The natural 1075 history and transmission potential of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection Variation in False-Negative Rate of 1078 Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction-Based SARS-CoV-2 Tests by Time Since Exposure Epub 2020/05/19 The role of asymptomatic and pre-1082 symptomatic infection in SARS-CoV-2 transmission-a living systematic review Household Transmission of SARS-1086 CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Clinical and immunological assessment 1093 of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections SARS-CoV-2 1096 variants, spike mutations and immune escape Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant: a new chapter in the COVID-19 1100 pandemic An observational study found large 1103 methodological heterogeneity in systematic reviews addressing prevalence and cumulative 1104 incidence Counotte 1110 Stefanie Hossmann 1111 Funding 1112 Funding was received from the Swiss National Science Foundation (320030_176233, to 1113 NL The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or 1121 preparation of the manuscript 1122 1123 Author contributions 1124 Conceptualization Muhammad Irfanul Alam Nicola Low 1131 Risk of Bias assessment: Diana Buitrago-Garcia All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure Risk of Bias tool 1158 S1 Form. Data extraction forms 1159 S1 Table. Studies included in version 3.0 and excluded in version 4.0 of the living systematic review 1160 S2 Table. Characteristics of studies reporting on proportion of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections 1161 Location of studies contributing data to review question 1 S4 Table. Pooled results other systematic reviews on Asymptomatic 1164 S5 Table. Characteristics of mathematical modelling studies 1165 S1 Fig. Flowchart of identified Forest plot of proportion of people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection Forest plot of proportion of people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, stratified by 1168 study design Risk of bias assessment of studies in question Forest plot of proportion of people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection Forest plot of proportion of people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in contact and 1173 outbreak investigations by date of publication Forest plot of proportion of people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in screening 1175 studies by date of publication Forest plot of proportion of people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in contact and 1177 outbreak investigations by risk of selection bias Forest plot of proportion of people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in contact and 1181 outbreak investigations by risk of information bias Forest plot of proportion of people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in screening 1183 studies by risk of information bias Forest plot of proportion of people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in contact and 1185 outbreak investigations by risk of misclassification bias Forest plot of proportion of people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in screening 1187 studies by risk of misclassification bias Forest plot of proportion of people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in contact and 1189 outbreak investigations by risk of attrition bias Forest plot of proportion of people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in screening 1191 studies by risk of attrition bias Forest plot of proportion of people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in contact and 1193 outbreak investigations by risk of bias in all domains Forest plot of proportion of people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in screening 1195 studies by risk of bias in all domains Assessment of credibility of mathematical modelling studies