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 updated a living systematic review to address 3 questions: (1) Among 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 2021. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 6 July 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 130 studies. Heterogeneity was high so we did not estimate a mean proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range (IQR) 14% to 50%, prediction interval 2% to 90%), or in 84 studies based on screening of defined populations (IQR 20% to 65%, prediction interval 4% to 94%). In 46 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 25%, prediction interval 2% to 70%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.64, prediction interval 0.11 to 0.95, 8 studies). (3) In 13 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 and high risks of selection and information bias in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, and limited information about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated. Conclusions Based on studies published up to July 2021, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic, and asymptomatic infections were less infectious than symptomatic infections. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme and prediction intervals should be presented. Future studies should determine the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections caused by variants of concern and in people with immunity following vaccination or previous infection. 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 SARS-CoV-2. Review protocol Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ewys/)

Background: The Zika virus (ZIKV) caused a large outbreak in the Americas leading to the declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern in February 2016. A causal relation between infection and adverse congenital outcomes such as microcephaly was declared by the World Health Organization (WHO) informed by a systematic review structured according to a framework of ten dimensions of causality, based on the work of Bradford Hill. Subsequently, the evidence has continued to accumulate, which we incorporate in regular updates of the original work, rendering it a living systematic review. Methods: We present an update of our living systematic review on the causal relation between ZIKV infection and adverse congenital outcomes and between ZIKV and GBS for four dimensions of causality: strength of association, dose-response, specificity, and consistency. We assess the evidence published between January 18, 2017 and July 1, 2019. Results: We found that the strength of association between ZIKV infection and adverse outcomes from case-control studies differs according to whether exposure to ZIKV is assessed in the mother (OR 3.8, 95% CI: 1.7-8.7, I2=19.8%) or the foetus/infant (OR 37.4, 95% CI: 11.0-127.1, I2=0%). In cohort studies, the risk of congenital abnormalities was 3.5 times higher after ZIKV infection (95% CI: 0.9-13.5, I2=0%). The strength of association between ZIKV infection and GBS was higher in studies that enrolled controls from hospital (OR: 55.8, 95% CI: 17.2-181.7, I2=0%) than in studies that enrolled controls at random from the same community or household (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 0.8-5.4, I2=74.6%). In case-control studies, selection of controls from hospitals could have biased results. Conclusions: The conclusions that ZIKV infection causes adverse congenital outcomes and GBS are reinforced with the evidence published between January 18, 2017 and July 1, 2019.

Background Outbreaks of infectious diseases generate outbreaks of scientific evidence. In 2016 epidemics of Zika virus emerged, and in 2020, a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused a pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We compared patterns of scientific publications for the two infections to analyse the evolution of the evidence. Methods We annotated publications on Zika virus and SARS-CoV-2 that we collected using living evidence databases according to study design. We used descriptive statistics to categorise and compare study designs over time. Results We found 2286 publications about Zika virus in 2016 and 21,990 about SARS-CoV-2 up to 24 May 2020, of which we analysed a random sample of 5294 (24%). For both infections, there were more epidemiological than laboratory science studies. Amongst epidemiological studies for both infections, case reports, case series and cross-sectional studies emerged first, cohort and case-control studies were published later. Trials were the last to emerge. The number of preprints was much higher for SARS-CoV-2 than for Zika virus. Conclusions Similarities in the overall pattern of publications might be generalizable, whereas differences are compatible with differences in the characteristics of a disease. Understanding how evidence accumulates during disease outbreaks helps us understand which types of public health questions we can answer and when.

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.

Aims: Measures against COVID-19 potentially impact quality of life in different ways. The capability approach by Amartya Sen with a broad and consistent framework for measuring quality of life is suited to capture the various consequences. We aimed to examine (a) whether individuals experienced change in 10 capability dimensions during the first half of 2020, (b) which dimensions were affected most, and (c) whether changes were unequally distributed in terms of gender, education, income, geography, housing, living situation and place of birth. Methods: We assessed self-reported capability change in Sweden in 10 capability dimensions in a cross-sectional online survey among 500 participants on a five-item Likert scale. We analysed the distribution of answers by comparing the balance of positive and negative perceived changes and used mixed effects logistic regression to examine associations with background characteristics of the participants. Results: Reported perceived negative changes outweighed positive changes, and a higher proportion stated negative perceived changes if they also stated having low capability in the same dimension. In the capabilities of financial situation, political resources and health, the proportions of perceived negative change were highest. Odds for perceived negative change compared to no or positive change were higher for higher incomes, living in medium-sized municipalities, being born outside Europe, living in the south of Sweden, and renting instead of owning housing. Conclusions: Self-reported negative capability change, and associated inequalities related to socioeconomic position, place of birth and regional residence should be of concern for policymakers.