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/)

BackgroundGrowing evidence indicates that prolonged sedentary behaviour increases the risk of several chronic health conditions and all-cause mortality. Sedentary behaviour is prevalent among adults in the UK. Quantifying the costs associated with sedentary behaviour is an important step in the development of public health policy.MethodsNational Health Service (NHS) costs associated with prolonged sedentary behaviour (≥6 hours/day) were estimated over a 1-year period in 2016–2017 costs. We calculated a population attributable fraction (PAF) for five health outcomes (type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease [CVD], colon cancer, endometrial cancer and lung cancer). Adjustments were made for potential double-counting due to comorbidities. We also calculated the avoidable deaths due to prolonged sedentary behaviour using the PAF for all-cause mortality.ResultsThe total NHS costs attributable to prolonged sedentary behaviour in the UK in 2016–2017 were £0.8 billion, which included expenditure on CVD (£424 million), type 2 diabetes (£281 million), colon cancer (£30 million), lung cancer (£19 million) and endometrial cancer (£7 million). After adjustment for potential double-counting, the estimated total was £0.7 billion. If prolonged sedentary behaviour was eliminated, 69 276 UK deaths might have been avoided in 2016.ConclusionsIn this conservative estimate of direct healthcare costs, prolonged sedentary behaviour causes a considerable burden to the NHS in the UK. This estimate may be used by decision makers when prioritising healthcare resources and investing in preventative public health programmes.

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.

Evidence supports the multi-functional nature of urban green space, and so economic evaluations should have a broad lens in order to capture their full impact. Given the evidence for a range of health, wellbeing, social and environmental benefits of such interventions, we modelled the potential social return on investment of a new urban greenway intervention in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Areas that the greenway was purported to impact upon included: land and property values; flood alleviation; tourism; labour employment and productivity; quality of place; climate change; and, health. The most recent and applicable evidence pre-development of the greenway for each area was summarised to obtain an 'effect estimate'; this was then applied to available data for the greenway area and the impact estimated and monetised using various methods. To calculate the Benefit Cost Ratio all seven monetary benefits were summed, for both a worst case and best case scenario, and divided by the total investment cost. The Benefit Cost Ratio ranged from 2.88 to 5.81 (i.e. for every £1.00 invested in the greenway, there would be £2.00-6.00 returned). This is one of the first studies to conduct a social return on investment of a new urban greenway estimating the potential benefits.