Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32991604›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical public health interventions against COVID-19; a protocol of a systematic review and realist review.

Shabnam Iezadi, Saber Azami-Aghdash, Akbar Ghiasi, Aziz Rezapour, Hamid Pourasghari, Fariba Pashazadeh, Kamal Gholipour

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. A pandemic momentum index to manage the spread of COVID-19.Technological forecasting and social change · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Can the Content of Social Networks Explain Epidemic Outbreaks?Population research and policy review · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Shabnam IezadiHospital Management Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Saber Azami-AghdashTabriz Health Services Management Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Akbar GhiasiHEB School of Business & Administration, University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, Texas, United States of America.
Aziz RezapourHealth Management and Economics Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Hamid PourasghariHospital Management Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Fariba PashazadehResearch Center of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Kamal GholipourSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-6595-4150
Iran University of Medical Sciences · IRTabriz University of Medical Sciences · IRUniversity of the Incarnate Word · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWithout any pharmaceutical intervention and vaccination, the only way to combat Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is to slow down the spread of the disease by adopting non-pharmaceutical public health interventions (PHIs). Patient isolation, lockdown, quarantine, social distancing, changes in health care provision, and mass screening are the most common non-pharmaceutical PHIs to cope with the epidemic. However, there is neither systematic evidence on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical PHIs in controlling the COVID-19 nor on how these interventions work in different contexts. Therefore, in this study we will address two main objectives: 1) to assess the effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical PHIs in controlling the spread of COVID-19 using a systematic review and meta-analyses; 2) to explore why, how, and for whom these interventions work using a realist review. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis review study has two main phases. In the first phase of this study, we will extract data from two main types of studies including quasi-experimental studies (such as quasi-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series studies (ITSs)) and observational studies (such as cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies), written in the English language. We will explore effectiveness of the non-pharmaceutical PHIs targeted either suppression or mitigation strategies (or a combination of both) in controlling the COVID-19 epidemics in the community level. Effectiveness will be considered as the changes in mortality rate, incidence rate, basic reproduction number rate, morbidity rate, rates of hospitalization, rates of intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization, and other health outcomes where possible. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses, if possible, using CMA software. In the second phase, we will conduct a realist review to find out how, why, for whom, and in what circumstances the non-pharmaceutical PHIs work. At the realist review, we will identify and explore Context-Mechanism-Outcome configurations to provide a robust explanation on the effectiveness of the interventions in different contexts using Pawson's 5-step realist review template including: "clarify scope; search for evidence; appraise primary studies and extract data; synthesize evidence and draw conclusions; and disseminate, implement and evaluate". Although the steps are presented in a linear manner, in practice, we will follow them in iterative stages to fill any potential overlap. DISCUSSION: The findings of this research will provide a crucial insight into how and in which context the non-pharmaceutical PHIs work in controlling the spread of COVID-19. Conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis in line with a realist review will allow us to draw a robust conclusion on the effects and the way in which the interventions work. Understanding the role of contextual factors in the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical PHIs and the mechanism of this process could enable policymakers to implement appropriate policies and manage the COVID-19 epidemics more efficiently. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42020186855.

Indexed as

Basic Reproduction NumberBetacoronavirusCommunicable Disease ControlControlled Before-After StudiesCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19HospitalizationHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisMeta-Analysis as TopicNon-Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicObservational Studies as TopicPandemicsPneumonia, ViralResearch DesignSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID32991604
PMCPMC7523985
OpenAlexW3089923041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.