Back

Who infected the reported cases? Evidence from 678,482 COVID-19 cases with identified infector collected in routine surveillance in the Netherlands, 2020-2022.

Backer, J. A.; Leung, K. Y.; Andeweg, S. P.; Van de Kassteele, J.; Veldhuijzen, I.; Hahne, S.; Wallinga, J.

2026-05-17 epidemiology
10.64898/2026.05.15.26347859 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background During infectious disease outbreaks, characteristics of reported cases are routinely collected. These give information on becoming infected but not on infecting others. We assess whether linking infectees to infectors, together with their characteristics, can help understand transmission. Methods From the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands, reported cases were asked to identify their most probable infector in routine surveillance, enabling the linking of cases. We assess for the period 27 February 2020 - 11 April 2022 whether the infectees of these transmission pairs are representative of all reported cases, whether the transmission pairs yield verifiable estimates of epidemiological characteristics (here the serial interval), and whether they provide information on transmission that cannot be obtained otherwise. Results Of 8,003,008 reported cases, 678,482 (8.5%) could be linked to their most probable infector. These infectees were largely representative of the reported cases regarding age group, sex, and geographical location. The mean serial interval of 3.6 days (sd 3.4 days) from transmission pairs aligns with literature. Transmissions between age groups largely follow known contact patterns. Most transmissions in September 2021 occurred between persons who were not (fully) vaccinated, indicating the effectiveness of the vaccine, and relatively few between persons with different vaccination status, indicating assortative mixing in vaccination status. Conclusion Transmission pairs can be efficiently collected in routine surveillance, providing insight into disease transmission. The current post-pandemic period provides an excellent opportunity to adjust reporting systems for linking infectees to their most probable infector as preparation for future outbreaks.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
28.3%
2
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.6%
3
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.6%
4
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.4%
6
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.8%
7
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.8%
8
European Journal of Epidemiology
40 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.7%
10
Epidemics
104 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.4%
11
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.1%
12
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
13
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
14
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
15
Swiss Medical Weekly
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
16
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.4%
17
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
18
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
19
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
20
European Journal of Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
21
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
22
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
23
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
24
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 57%
0.8%
25
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
26
Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses
44 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
27
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.5%