Skip to main content
. 2022 Nov 17;10:280. Originally published 2021 Apr 9. [Version 3] doi: 10.12688/f1000research.52439.3

Table 6. Main Results of Included Studies Investigating SARS-CoV-2 Transmission in Close Contact Settings.

Study ID Type of
transmission
Total number of
contacts
Cycle
threshold
Attack rates and/or secondary attack
rates (SAR)
Notes
Abdulrahman 2020 Community Eid Alfitr
Pre-: 71,553;
Post-: 76,384
Ashura
Pre-: 97,560;
Post-: 118,548
Not reported Eid Alfitr
Pre-: 2990 (4.2%); Post-: 4987 (6.7%); p <0.001
Ashura
Pre-: 3571 (3.7%); Post-: 7803 (6.6%); p <0.001
The rate of positive tests was significantly greater
after religious events.
Adamik 2020 Household Unclear Not reported Unclear: 3553 (AR 26.7%)
Afonso 2021 Household 267 < 25, 25–30,
or >30
19.9% (95% CI 15.5–25.1; 53/267)
Agergaard 2020 Household PCR: 5
Serology: 5
Not reported Index case plus 1 family member tested
positive-PCR
All 5 displayed a serological SARS-CoV-2 N/S
IgG response
Akaishi 2021 Household
Community
2179 Not specified 11.9% (95% CI 10.6–13.3%; 259/2179)
Angulo-Bazán 2021 Household 52 households
(n=236 people)
4.5±2.5 members
per household
Not reported Serology: Amongst cohabitants, SAR was
53.0% (125 cases): 77.6% of cases were
symptomatic
Convenience sampling, no component of
temporality, selection bias.
Armann 2021 Local
Household
2045 in Phase 1
1779 in Phase 2
N/A Serology: 12/2045 (0.6%)
Serology: 12/1779 (0.7%)
Arnedo-Pena 2020 Household 745 Not reported 11.1% (95% CI 9.0-13.6)
Atherstone 2021 Community 441 Not specified 9.3% (41/441)
Baettig 2020 Local 55 Not reported Serologic attack rates: 2/55 (3.6%) Serological testing was positive for the 2 contacts
14 days after index case
Baker 2020 Nosocomial 44 Not reported 3/44 (6.8%): 1 of these was also exposed to a
household member with COVID-19.
Recall error and bias, report is limited to a single
exposure, change in mask policy partway through
the exposure period
Bao 2020 Community 57 index cases
1895 exposed
Not reported SAR was 3.3% at the bathing pool, 20.5% in
the colleagues’ cluster and 11.8% in the family
cluster.
Delayed detection of the activity trajectory of the
primary case, reporting bias, overlap of close
contacts
Basso 2020 Nosocomial 60 HCWs - ≥106
unique high-risk
contacts
Not reported Attack rate: 0/60 (0%)
Serology: 0/60 (0%)
Delay in diagnosing index case, recall bias
Bays 2020 Nosocomial 421 HCWs Not reported 8/421 (1.9%) In all 8 cases, the staff had close contact with the
index patients without sufficient PPE. Hospital staff
developing ILI symptoms were tested for SARS-
CoV-2, regardless of whether they had contact with
an index patient
Bender 2021 Community 280 Not specified 13.3% (24/180)
Bernardes-Souza
2021
Household 112 Not specified AR 49.1% (55/112)
Bhatt 2022 Household 487 N/A 49.1% (95% CI 42.9–55.3%; 239/487)
Bi 2020 Local
Household
Community
1,296 Not reported 98/1286 (7.6%)
Bi 2021 Household 4534 Not specified 6.6% (298/4534)
Bistaraki 2021 Household
Community
64608 Not specified 17.4% (95% CI 17.0–17.8; 11232/64608).
Bjorkman 2021 Local 6408 Not specified AR 16.5% (1058/6408)
Blaisdell 2020 Community 1,022 Not reported 1.8% of camp attendees (10 staff members
and 8 campers)
Travel was assumed to be from home state, but
intermediate travel might have occurred
Böhmer 2020 Local
Household
241 Not reported 75·0% (95% CI 19·0–99·0; three of four
people) among members of a household
cluster in common isolation, 10·0% (1·2–32·0;
two of 20) among household contacts only
together until isolation of the patient, and
5·1% (2·6–8·9; 11 of 217) among non-
household, high-risk contacts.
Boscolo-Rizzo 2020 Household 296 Not reported 74/296 (25.0%, 95% CI 20.2–30.3%) The prevalence of altered sense of smell or taste
was by far lower in subjects negative to SARS-CoV-2
compared to both positives (p < 0.001) and non-
tested cases (p < 0.001).
Brown 2020 Local 21 Not reported Serologic attack rate: 2/21 (1%) Social desirability bias likely
Burke 2020 Household 445 Not reported 0.45% (95% CI = 0.12%–1.6%) among all close
contacts, and a symptomatic secondary attack
rate of 10.5% (95% CI = 2.9%–31.4%) among
household members.
2 persons who were household members of
patients with confirmed COVID-19 tested positive
for SARS-CoV-2.
Calvani 2021 Local
Household
162 children
(81 SARS-CoV-2
positive and 81
Controls)
142 contacts
Used NAAT School contacts 40% (28/70)
Family members 30.6% (95%CI 20.2–42.5;
22/72)
School contacts: 70 children, 219 family members
Canova 2020 Nosocomial 21 Not reported 0/21 (0%)
Carazo 2021 Household 9096 Not specified 29.8% (2718/9096)
Cariani 2020 Nosocomial Unclear 33.6 to 38.03 182 out of 1683 (10.8%) tested positive; 27 of
whom had close contact with COVID-positive
patients
Unclear how many HCWs had close contact;
likelihood of recall bias
Carvalho 2022 Household 182 Not specified 52.7% (96/182)
Cerami 2021 Household 103 Not specified 32% (95% CI 22%-44%; 33/103)
Charlotte 2020 Community 27 Not reported 19 of 27 (70%) tested positive High risk of selection bias: The index case-patients
were not identified. A majority of patients were not
tested for SARS-CoV-2
Chaw 2020 Local
Community
1755 Not reported Close contact: 52/1755 (29.6%)
Nonprimary attack rate: 2.9% (95% CI
2.2%–3.8%)
Potential environmental factors were not
accounted for: relative household size, time
spent at home with others, air ventilation, and
transmission from fomites.
Chen 2020 Aircraft 335 Not reported 16/335 (4.8%) Recall bias. Did not perform virus isolation and
genome sequencing of the virus, which could have
provided evidence of whether viral transmission
occurred during the flight.
Chen 2020a Local
Household
209 Not reported 0/209 (0%)
Chen 2020b Nosocomial 105 Not reported Serology: 18/105 (17.1%)
Chen 2020c Local
Community
Household
Nosocomial
2147 Not reported 110/2147 (5.12%)
Cheng 2020 Household
Nosocomial
2761 Not reported 0.70%
Chu 2020 Community 50 exposed Not reported None for antigen or antibody: 0/50 (0%) Testing was biased toward contacts who knew
the case-patient personally (office co-workers) or
provided direct care for the case-patient (HCP).
Chu 2021 Household 526 exposed Not reported 48 (9%) (CI 7-12%) Very high risk of selection bias
Contejean 2020 Nosocomial 1344 exposed Not reported 373 (28%)
Cordery 2021 Local
Household
65 Not specified Overall 12.3% (8/65)
Child bubble contacts 0% (0/13)
School contacts 10.3% (3/29)
Child household contacts 0% (0/8)
Adult household contacts 26.7% (4/15)
COVID-19 National
Emergency
Response Center
2020
Local
Household
Nosocomial
2370 Not reported 13/2370 (0.6%) There were 13 individuals who contracted COVID-
19 resulting in a secondary attack rate of 0.55%
(95% CI 0.31–0.96). There were 119 household
contacts, of which 9 individuals developed COVID-
19 resulting in a secondary attack rate of 7.56%
(95% CI 3.7–14.26).
Craxford 2021 Household 178 N/A 7.2% (13/178)
Danis 2020 Local
Household
Chalet: 16
School: 172
Not reported Attack rate: 75% in chalet
Attack rate: 0% in school
Only 73 of 172 school contacts were tested - all
tested negative
Dattner 2020 Household 3353 Not reported Attack rates: 25% in children and 44% adults
(45% overall)
Serology: 9/714 (1.3%)
de Brito 2020 Household 24 exposed Not reported RT-PCR: 6/7 (86%); Seropositivity: 18/24 (75%)
Deng 2020 Household 347 Not reported 25/347 (7.2%)
Desmet 2020 Local 84 38.8 Attack rate: 0/84 (0%) Ct reported for only one test result
Dimcheff 2020 Community
Nosocomial
Household
1476 Not reported Seroprevalence 72/1476: 4.9% (95% CI,
3.8%–6.1%)
Dong 2020 Household 259 Not reported 53/259 (20.5%)
Doung-ngern 2020 Local 211 cases plus
839 non-
matched controls
Not reported
Draper 2020 Local
Household
Nosocomial
445 Not reported 4/445 (0.9%) None of the 326 aircraft passengers or 4
healthcare workers who were being monitored
close contacts became cases.
Dub 2020 Local
Household
121 Not reported Child index case: No positive cases
Adult index case: 8/51 (16%)
Serology: 6/101 (5.9%)
Expert Taskforce
2020
Local Unclear Not reported Attack rate 20.4% Attack rates were highest in 4-person cabins
(30.0%; n = 18), followed by 3-person cabins (22.0%;
n = 27), 2-person cabins (20.6%; n = 491), and 1-
person cabins (8%; n = 6).
Farronato 2021 Household 49 N/A 16.3% (8/49)
Fateh-Moghadam
2020
Community 6690 Not reported 890/6690 (13.3%)
Firestone 2020 Local Unclear Not reported 41 (80%) interviewed patients with primary
event-associated COVID-19 reported having
close contact with others during their
infectious period, with an average of 2.5 close
contacts per patient.
36 (75%) of 48 interviewed patients with
primary event-associated cases reported
having close contact with persons in their
household while infectious, and 17 (35%)
reported having other (social/workplace)
close contacts while infectious.
Fontanet 2021 Local 2004 N/A Serology: 15.3% (306/2004)
10.4% (139/1,340) - primary schools
25.1% (167/664) - high schools
Galow 2021 Household 248 N/A 34.3% (85/248)
Gamboa Moreno
2021
Household
Community
Unclear Not specified 2.9% in preschools to 7.1% in high schools
Gan 2020 Local
Household
Community
Unclear Not reported Not reported Family clusters accounted for 86.9% (914/1 050) of
cases, followed by party dinners (1.1%)
Gaskell 2021 Household 1242 N/A AR 64.3% (95% CI 61.6-67.0%, 799/1,242).
Ge 2021 Household
Community
8852 Not specified 3.6% (95% CI 3.3%-4.0%; 327/8852)
Ghinai 2020 Community Unclear Not reported Unclear
Gold 2021 Local
Household
31 school
69 household
Not specified School: 48% (15/31)
Household: 26% (18/69)
Gomaa 2021 Household 98 Not specified AR 6.9% (95%CI: 5.8–8.3)
89.8% (95% CI: 82.2–94.3; 88/98)
AR Serology 34.8% (95% CI: 32.2–37.4;
438/1260)
Gonçalves 2021 Household 271 case-
patients and
1,396 household
controls
Not specified Not reported
Gong 2020 Household
Community
Unclear Not reported Unclear
Gu 2020 Local 14 Not reported RT-PCR - 3/14 (21.4%)
Serology - 2/14 (14.3%)
Hamner 2020 Local 60 Not reported Confirmed: 32/60 (53.3%)
Probable: 20/60 (33.3%)
Han 2020 Community 192 Not reported 7/192 (3.7%)
Hast 2022 Community 628 Not specified 9.2% (58/628)
Heavey 2020 Local 1155 Not reported 0/1155 (0%)
Helsingen 2020 Local Training arm:
1,896
Nontraining arm:
1,868
Not reported 11/1896 (0.8%) vs 27/1868 (2.4%); P=0.001
Hendrix 2020 Local 139 exposed Not reported 0% Six close contacts of stylists A and B outside of
salon A were identified: four of stylist A and two
of stylist B. All four of stylist A’s contacts later
developed symptoms and had positive PCR test
results for SARS-CoV-2. These contacts were stylist
A’s cohabitating husband and her daughter, son-in-
law, and their roommate, all of whom lived together
in another household. None of stylist B’s contacts
became symptomatic.
Hirschman 2020 Household
Community
58 Not reported 27/58 (47%)
Hobbs 2020 Local
Household
Community
397 Not reported Not reported
Hoehl 2021 Local
Community
825 children and
372 staff: 7,366
buccal mucosa
swabs and 5,907
anal swabs
Not reported 0% viral shedding in children; 2/372
(0.5%) shedding for staff. No inapparent
transmissions were observed
Study was conducted in the summer of 2020, when
activity of other respiratory pathogens was also low
Hong 2020 Household 431 tests Not reported 0/13 (0%) Index cases had lived with their family members
without personal protections for a total of 258
person-days.
Hsu 2021 Household 145 Not specified 46.2% (47/145)
Hu 2020 Community 72093 Not specified 0.32% (95%CI 0.29% –0.37%; 234/72093)
Hu 2021 Household
Community
15648 Not reported 471/15648 (3%)
Hu 2021 Local 5622 Not specified 0.6% (95% CI 0.43 - 0.84%; 34/5622)
Hua 2020 Household 835 Not reported 151/835 (18.1%)
Huang 2020 Household
Community
22 Not reported 7/22 (31.8%)
Huang 2020a Local
Household
Community
Nosocomial
3795 Not reported 32/3795 (0.84%)
Huang 2021 Nosocomial 211 Not specified 3.8% (8/211)
Islam 2020 Household
Local
Community
Nosocomial
391 Not reported The overall secondary clinical attack rate was
4.08 (95% CI 1.95-6.20)
Jashaninejad 2021 Household 989 Not specified 31.7% (95% CI: 28.8-34.7)
Jeewandara 2021 Household
Community
1093 Not specified 7.8% (85/1093) - PCR
1.7% (7/439) - antibodies
Jia 2020 Household Unclear Not reported Attack rate 44/583 (7.6%)
Jiang 2020 Household
Community
300 Not reported 6/300 (2%)
Jing 2020 Household Unclear Not reported Household contacts 13·2%
Non-household contacts 2·4%
The risk of household infection was significantly
higher in the older age group (≥60 years)
Jing 2020a Household
Community
Unclear Not reported Close contacts 17.1% to 19%
Family members 46.1% to 49.6%
Jones 2021 Local 128 Not reported 6/128 (4.7%)
Jordan 2022 Local 253 Not specified 4.7% (12/253)
Kang 2020 Local 5517 Not reported 96/5517 (1.7%)
Kant 2020 Local
Community
Nosocomial
Not reported Not reported Not reported No details on number of contacts for index case
Karumanagoundar
2021
Household
Community
15702 Not specified 4% (599/14 002)
Katlama 2022 Household 255 N/A 37.3% (95%CI 31.3–43.5%; 95/255)
Kawasuji 2020 Nosocomial 105 Not reported 14/105 (1.33%)
Khanh 2020 Community 217 Not reported 16/217 (7.4%)
Kim 2020 Household 207 17.7 to 30 1/207 (0.5%)
Kim 2020a Household
Community
4 18.7 to 32.1 N/A
Kim 2020b Nosocomial 3,091 respiratory
samples from
2,924 individuals
Not reported 3/290 (1%)
Kim 2021 Local 8 N/A 0% RT-PCR
0% Serology
Tests for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were
performed on quarantined HCWs on the 52nd day
from exposure. All serologic test results, including
FIA IgM and IgG and ELISA total antibody, were
negative.
Kitahara 2022 Household
Community
114 Not specified 15% (17/114)
Klompas 2021 Nosocomial 1457 Not specified 2.6% (38/1457)
Kolodziej 2022 Household 241 Not specified 64.3% (155/241) SAR for household was 75/85 (88.6%)
Koureas 2021 Household 286 Not specified 38.6% (95% CI: 32.50–45.01%)
Kumar 2021 Community 822 Not reported 144/822 17.5%) Spread of infection within the state was significantly
higher from symptomatic cases, p=0.02
Kuwelker 2021 Household 179 N/A 45% The elderly (>60 years old) had a significantly
higher attack rate (72%) than adults< 60years old
(46%, p=0·045)
Kuwelker 2021 Household 291 N/A AR 45% (95% CI 38–53)
Kwok 2020 Local
Household
206 Not reported 24/206 (11.7%)
Ladhani 2020 Nosocomial 254 Not reported Unclear: 53/254 (21%) tested positive. Staff working across different care homes (14/27,
52%) had a 3.0-fold (95% CI, 1.9–4.8; P<0.001)
higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity than staff
working in single care homes (39/227, 17%).
Ladhani 2020a Nosocomial Residents: 264
Staff members:
254
Not specified Unclear: 105/264 (53%) residents tested
positive
Infectious virus recovery in asymptomatic staff and
residents emphasises their likely importance as
silent reservoirs and transmitters of infection and
explains the failure of infection control measures
which have been largely based on identification of
symptomatic individuals.
Laws 2020 Household 188 Not reported 55/188 (29.3%)
Laws 2021 Household 188 Not specified 29.3% (55/188);
Laxminarayan 2020 Local
Household
Community
575,071 Not reported 10.7% (10.5 to 10.9%) for high-risk contacts
4.7% (4.6 to 4.8%) for low-risk contacts
79.3% (52.9 to 97.0%) for high-risk travel
exposure
Lee 2020 Household 12 Not reported 0/12 (0%)
Lee 2020a Household 23 Not reported 1/23 (4.4%)
Lewis 2020 Household 188 Not reported RT-PCR: 55/188 (29%)
Serology: 8/52 (15%)
Li 2020 Household 5 19.66 to 26.16 4/5 (80%)
Li 2020a Household
Nosocomial
7 Not reported 7/7 (100%) During January 14–22, the authors report that
index patient had close contact with 7 persons
Li 2020b Household 14 Not reported 14/14 (100%)
Li 2020c Household Unclear Not reported Unclear In COFs, the transmission rates of respiratory
droplets in secondary and non-infected patients
were 11.9 % and 66.7 %, respectively, while
the transmission rates of respiratory droplets
with close contacts were 88.1 % and 33.3 %,
respectively. In SOFs, the proportion of respiratory
droplet and respiratory droplet transmission with
close contacts was 40 % and 60 %, respectively
Li 2020d Household 392 Not reported 64/392 (16.3%)
Li 2021a Household 52822 Not specified 16·0% (15·7–16·3; 8447/52822)
Li 2021b Household
Community
2382 Not specified 6.50%
Lin 2021 Household 5 Not specified PCR 80%
Serology 80%
Liu 2020 Household 7 Not reported 4/7 (57.1%)
Liu 2020a Nosocomial 30 Not reported N/A
Liu 2020b Household
Community
Nosocomial
11580 Not reported 515/11580 (4.4%)
Liu 2020c Unclear 1150 Not reported 47/1150 (4.1%) The 16 confirmed cases who had previously been
asymptomatic accounted for 236 close contacts,
with a second attack rate of 9.7%, while the
remaining 131 asymptomatic carriers accounted
for 914 close contacts, with a second attack rate of
2.6% (p<0.001)
Liu 2021 Household 50 Not specified 34% (95% CI: 22%–48%; 17/50)
López 2020 Local
Household
285 Not reported Facility SAR: 22/101 (21.8%)
Overall SAR: 38/184 (20.7%)
Variation in hygiene procedures across 3 facilities.
Facility A required daily temperature and
symptom screening for the 12 staff members
and children and more frequent cleaning and
disinfection; staff members were required to wear
masks. Facility B: temperatures of the five staff
members and children were checked daily, and
more frequent cleaning was conducted; only staff
members were required to wear masks. Facility
C: 84 staff members and children check their
temperature and monitor their symptoms daily;
masks were not required for staff members or
children.
López 2021 Household 229 Not specified 53.7% (123/229)
Lopez Bernal 2020 Household
Community
472 Not reported 37% (95% CI 31-43%)
Lopez Bernal 2022 Household 472 Not specified 37% (95% confidence interval (CI): 31–43)
Lucey 2020 Nosocomial Not specified N/A Not reported
Luo 2020 Community 243 Not reported 12/243 (4.9%) No viral genetic sequence data were available
from these cases to prove linkage; and some
of the secondary and tertiary cases could have
been exposed to unknown infections, especially
asymptomatic ones, before or after the bus trips.
Luo 2020a Household
Community
Nosocomial
3410 Not reported 127/3410 (3.7%)
Lyngse 2020 Household 2226 Not reported 371/2226 (16.7%)
Ma 2020 Unclear 1665 Not reported 10/1/1665 (0.6%) Only close contacts who fell ill were tested (n=10)
Macartney 2020 Local 633 Not reported 18/633 (1.2%)
Serologic attack rates: 8/171 (4.8%)
Malheiro 2020 Household 1627 Not reported Overall AR 154/1627 (9.5%)
Maltezou 2020 Household Unclear <25 (28.1%)
25-30
(26.8%)
>30 (45.1%)
Median attack rate 40% (range: 11.1%–100%)
per family.
Maltezou 2020a Household Unclear Not reported Median attack rate: 60% (range: 33.4%-100%) Adults were more likely to develop a severe clinical
course compared to children (8.8% versus 0%, p-
value=0.021)
Mao 2020 Household
Local
Unclear Not reported 6.10% Average attack rate was 8.54% (1.02–100%)
Martínez-Baz 2022 Household
Community
59900 Not specified 34.9% (20905/59900)
Martinez-Fierro
2020
Unclear 81 Not reported 34/81 (42%)
Serologic attack rates: 13/87 (14.9%)
16% of contact showed positive serology after >2
weeks
McLean 2022 Household 404 Not specified 49% (198/404)
Mercado-Reyes
2022
Household 17863 N/A AR Serology 32.3% (5811/17,863)
Metlay 2021 Household 17917 Not specified 10.1% (1809/17 917)
Meylan 2021 Nosocomial 1874 N/A AR Serology 10.0% (95%CI 8.7% to 11.5%;
188/1874)
Miller 2021 Household 431 <20 to 40 PCR 21.1% (91/431)
Serology 46.9% (180/431)
Montecucco 2021 Local 346 Not specified 9.8% (34/346)
Mponponsuo 2020 Nosocomial 38 N/A 0/38 (0%)
Musa 2021 Household 793 Not specified 17% (95%CI 14–21)
Ng 2020 Household
Local
Community
13026 Not reported 188/7770 (2.4%)
Household: 5·9%
Work contacts: 1.3%
Social contacts: 1.3%
Serology: 44/1150 (3.8%)
Serology results were positive for 29 (5·5%) of
524 household contacts, six (2·9%) of 207 work
contacts, and nine (2·1%) of 419 social contacts.
Ng 2021 Household 848 Not specified 55% (466/848)
Ning 2020 Household
Local
Community
Unclear Not reported Imported cases: 69/3435 (0.8%)
Local cases: 31/3666 (2.0%)
Njuguna 2020 Local 98 Not reported Attack rate 57% to 82%
Nsekuye 2021 Local
Household
Community
1035 Not specified 3.5% (36/1035)
Ogata 2021 Household 496 Not specified 25.2% (21.6–29.2; 125/496)
Ogawa 2020 Nosocomial 30 PCR/serology 33.53 to
36.83
0/15 (0%) for both PCR and serology
Paireau 2022 Household
Local
Nosocomial
6028 Not reported 248/6028 (4.1%) Family contacts, index case was 60-74, or older
than 75 years old were significantly associated with
increased odds of transmission. The proportion of
nosocomial transmission was significantly higher
than in contact tracing (14% vs 3%, p<0.001)
Pang 2022 Local 164 Not specified 9.8% (16/164)
Park 2020 Local
Household
Community
328 17.7 to 35 22/328 (6.7%)
Park 2020a Household
Non-
household
59,073 Not reported Household contacts: 11.8% (95% CI 11.2%–
12.4%)
Non-household contacts: 1.9% (95% CI
1.8%–2.0%)
Park 2020b Local
Household
441 Not reported Attack rate 43.5% (95% CI 36.9%–50.4%)
Secondary attack rate 16.2% (95% CI
11.6%– 22.0%)
Passarelli 2020 Nosocomial 6 Not reported 2/6 (33.3%)
Patel 2020 Household 185 Not reported 79/185 (43%) Contacts not reported as tested
Pavli 2020 Aircraft 891 Not reported 5/891 (0.6%)
Petersen 2021 Household 584 N/A 19.2% (11/584)
Pett 2021 Household
Community
392 Not specified 3.3% (13/392)
Phiriyasart 2020 Household 471 Not reported 27/471 (5.7%)
Poletti 2020 Unclear 2484 Not reported 2824/5484 (51.5%)
Powell 2022 Local 183 Not specified 8.2% (15/183)
Pung 2020 Local
Community
425 Not reported 36/425 (8.5%)
Pung 2020a Household Unclear Not reported 43/875 (4.9%)
Qian 2020 Local
Household
Community
Not reported Not reported Not reported Home‐based outbreaks were the dominant
category (254 of 318 outbreaks; 79.9%), followed by
transport‐based outbreaks (108; 34.0%)
Ratovoson 2022 Household 179 Not specified 31.3% (56/179)
Ravindran 2020 Local Not reported Not reported Attack rate 61% to 77% All attendees participated in activities resulting
in potential exposure, such as shaking hands,
kissing, dancing, sharing drinks and sharing shisha
(smoking water pipes).
Razvi 2020 Nosocomial 2521 Not reported Serologic attack rate 19.4%
Reukers 2021 Household 187 Not specified 43% (95% CI, 33%–53%)
Robles Pellitero
2021
Household Not specified Not specified 29.8% (SAR/family)
Rosenberg 2020 Household 498 Not reported 286/498 (57%)
Roxby 2020 Nosocomial 142 Not reported Attack rate in 1st round: 5/142 (3.5%) One additional positive test result was reported for
an asymptomatic resident who had negative test
results on the first round.
Sakamoto 2022 Nosocomial 517 Not specified 8.1% (42/517)
Sang 2020 Household 6 Not reported 4/6 (66.7%)
Sarti 2021 Local 5 Not specified 80% (4/5)
Satter 2022 Local
Household
684 Not specified RT-PCR 13% (87/684)
Schoeps 2021 Local 14591 (13,005
PCR-tested)
Not specified 1.51 (95% CI 1.30–1.73)
Schumacher 2021 Local Quarantine
phase: 757 tests
Match phase:
1167 tests
Unclear Quarantine phase AR: 3.6%
Match phase AR: 4.2%
Serology: 1.1%
Schwierzeck 2020 Nosocomial 48 16.03 to 32.98 9/48 (18.8%) Ct values of symptomatic cases were significantly
lower compared to asymptomatic cases 22.55 vs
29.94, p<0.007 (approximately 200-fold higher viral
load)
Semakula 2021 Household
Community
11809 Not specified Overall 1.77% (95% CI 1.55% to 2.02%;
209/11809)
SAR of households 2.93% (95% CI 1.85% to
4.60%)
Shah 2020 Household 386 Not reported 34/386 (8.8%)
Shah 2021 Household 287 Not specified 1.7% (95%CI 0.7–4%)
Shen 2020 Household
Community
480 Not reported Close contact: 2/7 (29%)
Casual contact: 3/473 (0.6%)
Sikkema 2020 Nosocomial 1796 Not
specified.
WGS for Ct
<32
Attack rate 96/1796 (5%) 46 (92%) of 50 sequences from health-care workers
in the study were grouped in three clusters. Ten
(100%) of 10 sequences from patients in the study
grouped into the same three clusters:
Son 2020 Household 3223 Not reported 8.2% (95% CI, 4.7 to 12.9)
Song 2020 Household 20 Not reported 16/20 (80%)
Sordo 2022 Household 659 Not specified 22.5% (148/659).
Soriano-Arandes
2021
Household 283 Not specified 59% (167/283)
Speake 2020 Aircraft 111 Not reported 11/111 (9.9%)
Stein-Zamir 2020 Local 1312 Not reported Attack rate 178/1312 (13.6%)
Stich 2021 Household 1,220 Not specified RT-PCR 32.8% (400/1220)
Serology 36.1% (393/1,090)
Sugano 2020 Local 72 Not reported 23/72 (31.9%)
Sun 2020 Household Unclear Not reported 34.43%
Sun 2021 Household 50 Not specified 14.0% (7/50)
Sundar 2021 Household
Community
496 Not specified 16.7% (83/496)
Tadesse 2021 Household 40 households N/A AR 3.5% (95% CI: 3.2%-3.8%)
Tanaka 2021 Household 687 Not specified 28.2% (194/687)
Tanaka 2022 Household 101 households
with 477
individuals
Not specified 77.0% (95% CI: 69.4-84.6%)
Taylor 2020 Nosocomial 600 Not reported Resident attack rate: 137/259 (52.9%) 1st round
HCW Attack rate: 114/341 (33.4%)
Teherani 2020 Household 144 Not reported 67/144 (46.5%) Of the total number of household contacts, at least
29 (20%) had known SARS-CoV2 testing.
Child-to-adult transmission was suspected in 7/67
cases (10.5%).
Thangaraj 2020 Community 26 Not reported 17/26 (65.4%)
Torres 2020 Community 1244 N/A Overall serologic attack rate: 139/1244
(11.2%)
Tsang 2022 Household
Community
3158 Not specified 3.5% (95%CI 2.9–4.3)
Tshokey 2020 Local
Community
1618 Not reported 14/1618 (0.9%) SAR: High-risk contacts was 9.0% (7/75), and that
among the primary contacts was 0.6% (7/1,095),
and none (0/448) among the secondary contacts.
Tsushita 2022 Local 23 Not specified 69.6% (16/23)
van der Hoek 2020 Household 174 25.1 to 35.1 47/174 (27%)
Serology on day 3 - family members: 43/148
(29.1%)
Vičar 2021 Household 226 Not specified 22.6% (51/226)
Wang 2020 Nosocomial
Household
43 Not reported 10/43 (23.3%)
Wang 2020a Household 155 Not reported 47/155 (30%)
Wang 2020b Household 335 Not reported 77/335 (23%)
Wee 2020 Nosocomial 298 Not reported 1/298 (0.3%)
Wendt 2020 Nosocomial 254 Not reported 0/254 (0%)
Serologic attack rates 0/23 (0%)
White 2022a Local 485 Not specified 4.1% (20/485)
White 2022b Local 859 Not specified 7% (60/859)
Wiens 2021 Household 435 households N/A AR 38.5% (32.1 - 46.8)
Wolf 2020 Household 4 Not reported 3/4 (75%) 7-month-old female who was breastfed, was
asymptomatic throughout the observation
period and never developed fevers or any other
symptoms, despite continuous exposure to her
parents and siblings. She remained SARS-CoV-2
PCR-negative in repeat testing of pharyngeal swab
and stool specimens over the entire observation
period.
Wong 2020 Nosocomial 76 tests were
performed on 52
contacts
Not reported 0/52 (0%) Findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 is not spread
by an airborne route. Ct value for throat and
tracheal aspirate of index case were 22.8 and 26.1
respectively.
Wood 2021 Household Not reported Not reported Not reported
Wu 2020 Household
Local
Community
2994 Not reported 71/2994 (2.4%)
Wu 2020a Household 148 Not reported 48/148 (32.4%)
Wu 2021 Local
Household
Community
4214 Not specified 3.3% (140/4214)
Xie 2020 Household 56 Not reported 0/56 (0%)
Xie 2021 Household 79 Not specified 67.1% (53/79)
Xin 2020 Household 187 Not reported 19/187 (17.9%)
Yang 2020 Household
Local
1296 Not reported 0/1296 (0%)
Serologic attack rates: 0/20 (0%)
Viral cultures of 4 specimens with Ct <30 were
negative.
Yau 2020 Nosocomial 330 Not reported 22/330 (6.7%)
Ye 2020 Local
Community
1293 Not reported 39/1,293 (3.02%)
Yi 2021 Household 475 <37 42.9% (204/475)
Yoon 2020 Local 190 N/A 0/190 (0%)
Yousaf 2020 Household 198 Not reported 47/198 (23.7%)
Yu 2020 Household 1587 Not reported 150/1587 (9.5%)
Yung 2020 Household 213 Not reported Attack rate 6.1%
Zhang 2020 Aircraft 4492 Not reported Attack rate 161/4492 (3.6%) The authors report attack rate of 0.14% based on
94 flights (n=14 505); however, only 4492 people
were screened.
Zhang 2020a Household
Local
Community
369 Not reported 12/369 (3.3%, 95% CI 1.9%–5.6%)
Zhang 2020b Household 10 Not reported 0/10 (0%)
Serologic attack rates: 0/10 (0%)
Zhang 2020c Local
Household
93 Not reported 5/93 (5.4%)
Zhang 2020d Local 8437 Not reported 25/8437 (0.3%)
Zhang 2021 Local
Household
178 ≤38 7.3% (13/178)
Zhuang 2020 Household
Community
8363 Not reported 239/8363 (2.9%)