Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32510102›Full record

ArticleThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2020

Editorial: Diagnostic Testing for SARS-Coronavirus-2 in the Nursing Facility: Recommendations of a Delphi Panel of Long-Term Care Clinicians.

M Wasserman, J G Ouslander, A Lam, A G Wolk, J E Morley, S von Preyss-Friedman, N Marco, A Nazir, D Haimowitz, F Bessey

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Nurses' Experiences of Care in Portuguese Nursing Homes during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Focus Group Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Editorial: 2020: The Year of The COVID-19 Pandemic.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

M WassermanMichael Wasserman, MD, CMD, California Association of Long Term Care Medicine, 295 Mesa Ave., Newbury Park, CA 91320, Email: wassdoc@aol.com, Ph. 720-412-5202.
J G Ouslander
A Lam
A G Wolk
J E Morley
S von Preyss-Friedman
N Marco
A Nazir
D Haimowitz
F Bessey
Jewish Home · USCairn University · USFlorida Atlantic University · USNia Association · USSaint Louis University · USSignature Research (United States) · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the COVID-19 pandemic progressing, guidance on strategies to mitigate its devastating effects in nursing facilities (NFs) is critical to preventing additional tragic outcomes. Asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 from nursing facility staff and residents is a major accelerator of infection. Facility-wide point-prevalence testing is an emerging strategy in disease mitigation. Because time is not available to await the results of randomized controlled trials before implementing strategies in this high-risk setting, an expert Delphi panel composed of experienced long-term care medicine professionals has now met to provide testing guidance for SARS-Coronavirus-2 to NFs. After many email and telephone discussions, the panel responded to a questionnaire that included six different scenarios, based on varying availability of Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) testing and personal protective equipment (PPE). The panel endorsed facility-wide testing of staff and residents without dissent when diagnostic RT-PCR was available. While the panel recognized the limitations of RT-PCR testing, it strongly recommended this testing for both staff and residents in NFs that were either COVID-19 naive or had limited outbreaks. There was also consensus on testing residents with atypical symptoms in a scenario of limited testing capability. The panel favored testing every 1 to 2 weeks if testing was readily available, reducing the frequency to every month as community prevalence declined or as the collection of additional data further informed clinical critical thinking and decision-making. The panel recognized that frequent testing would have consequences in terms of potential staff shortages due to quarantine after positive tests and increased PPE use. However, the panel felt that not testing would allow new clusters of infection to form. The resulting high mortality rate would outweigh the potential negative consequences of testing. The panel also recognized the pandemic as a rapidly evolving crisis, and that new science and increasing experience might require an updating of its recommendations. The panel hopes that its recommendations will be of value to the long-term care industry and to policy makers as we work together to manage through this challenging and stressful time.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusClinical Laboratory TechniquesCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingDisease OutbreaksHumansLong-Term CareNursing HomesPandemicsPneumonia, ViralPrevalenceSARS-CoV-2CoronavirusCOVID-19nursing facilitiestesting

Identifiers

PMID32510102
PMCPMC7262162
OpenAlexW3031720414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.