ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020
Performance of Digital Contact Tracing Tools for COVID-19 Response in Singapore: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digital Contact Tracing Applications against COVID-19: A Systematic Review.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Use of a Real-Time Locating System in Infection Control.Infection & chemotherapy · 2024Review
- Effectiveness of probabilistic contact tracing in epidemic containment: The role of superspreaders and transmission path reconstruction.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Short- and Long-Term Predicted and Witnessed Consequences of Digital Surveillance During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Identifying Contact Time Required for Secondary Transmission of Clostridioides difficile Infections by Using Real-Time Locating System.Emerging infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Use of a digital contact tracing system in Singapore to mitigate COVID-19 spread.BMC public health · 2023Review
- Community-Based Digital Contact Tracing of Emerging Infectious Diseases: Design and Implementation Study With Empirical COVID-19 Cases.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- A Situational Analysis of the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Digital Health Research Initiatives in South Asia.Cureus · 2023Review
- Individual level analysis of digital proximity tracing for COVID-19 in Belgium highlights major bottlenecks.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Systematic scoping review of the implementation, adoption, use, and effectiveness of digital contact tracing interventions for COVID-19 in the Western Pacific Region.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2023Article
- Nurse, Give Me the News! Understanding Support for and Opposition to a COVID-19 Health Screening System.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Innovative applications of artificial intelligence in zoonotic disease management.Science in One Health · 2023Review
- Educate to transform: An innovative experience for faculty training.Education and information technologies · 2023Article
- The promise of digital healthcare technologies.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
- Correlating global trends in COVID-19 cases with online symptom checker self-assessments.PloS one · 2023Article
- Development and implementation of a national mobile health application: A case study from Brunei.Journal of global health · 2022Article
- The Potential Role of an Adjunctive Real-Time Locating System in Preventing Secondary Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a Hospital Environment: Retrospective Case-Control Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Contact tracing using real-time location system (RTLS): a simulation exercise in a tertiary hospital in Singapore.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Moving toward a common goal via cross-sector collaboration: lessons learned from SARS to COVID-19 in Singapore.Globalization and health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective contact tracing is labor intensive and time sensitive during the COVID-19 pandemic, but also essential in the absence of effective treatment and vaccines. Singapore launched the first Bluetooth-based contact tracing app-TraceTogether-in March 2020 to augment Singapore's contact tracing capabilities.
objectiveThis study aims to compare the performance of the contact tracing app-TraceTogether-with that of a wearable tag-based real-time locating system (RTLS) and to validate them against the electronic medical records at the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID), the national referral center for COVID-19 screening.
methodsAll patients and physicians in the NCID screening center were issued RTLS tags (CADI Scientific) for contact tracing. In total, 18 physicians were deployed to the NCID screening center from May 10 to May 20, 2020. The physicians activated the TraceTogether app (version 1.6; GovTech) on their smartphones during shifts and urged their patients to use the app. We compared patient contacts identified by TraceTogether and those identified by RTLS tags within the NCID vicinity during physicians' 10-day posting. We also validated both digital contact tracing tools by verifying the physician-patient contacts with the electronic medical records of 156 patients who attended the NCID screening center over a 24-hour time frame within the study period.
resultsRTLS tags had a high sensitivity of 95.3% for detecting patient contacts identified either by the system or TraceTogether while TraceTogether had an overall sensitivity of 6.5% and performed significantly better on Android phones than iPhones (Android: 9.7%, iPhone: 2.7%; P<.001). When validated against the electronic medical records, RTLS tags had a sensitivity of 96.9% and specificity of 83.1%, while TraceTogether only detected 2 patient contacts with physicians who did not attend to them.
conclusionsTraceTogether had a much lower sensitivity than RTLS tags for identifying patient contacts in a clinical setting. Although the tag-based RTLS performed well for contact tracing in a clinical setting, its implementation in the community would be more challenging than TraceTogether. Given the uncertainty of the adoption and capabilities of contact tracing apps, policy makers should be cautioned against overreliance on such apps for contact tracing. Nonetheless, leveraging technology to augment conventional manual contact tracing is a necessary move for returning some normalcy to life during the long haul of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.