ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2021
Clinical and Economic Impact of Widespread Rapid Testing to Decrease SARS-CoV-2 Transmission.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe value of frequent, rapid testing to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is poorly understood.
objectiveTo define performance standards and predict the clinical, epidemiological, and economic outcomes of nationwide, home-based, antigen testing.
designA simple compartmental epidemic model estimated viral transmission, clinical history, and resource use, with and without testing. DATA SOURCES: Parameter values and ranges informed by Centers for Disease Control guidance and published literature. TARGET POPULATION: United States population. TIME HORIZON: 60 days. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. Costs include: testing, inpatient care, and lost workdays.
interventionHome-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cumulative infections and deaths, numbers isolated and/or hospitalized, and total costs. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Without a testing intervention, the model anticipates 15 million infections, 125,000 deaths, and $10.4 billion in costs ($6.5 billion inpatient; $3.9 billion lost productivity) over a 60-day horizon. Weekly availability of testing may avert 4 million infections and 19,000 deaths, raising costs by $21.5 billion. Lower inpatient outlays ($5.9 billion) would partially offset additional testing expenditures ($12.0 billion) and workdays lost ($13.9 billion), yielding incremental costs per infection (death) averted of $5,400 ($1,100,000). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Outcome estimates vary widely under different behavioral assumptions and testing frequencies. However, key findings persist across all scenarios: large reductions in infections, mortality, and hospitalizations; and costs per death averted roughly an order of magnitude lower than commonly accepted willingness-to-pay values per statistical life saved ($5-17 million). LIMITATIONS: Analysis restricted to at-home testing and limited by uncertainties about test performance.
conclusionHigh-frequency home testing for SARS-CoV-2 using an inexpensive, imperfect test could contribute to pandemic control at justifiable cost and warrants consideration as part of a national containment strategy.
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.