Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33893241›Full record

ArticleScience (New York, N.Y.)2021

Resurgence of SARS-CoV-2: Detection by community viral surveillance.

Steven Riley, Kylie E C Ainslie, Oliver Eales, Caroline E Walters, Haowei Wang, Christina Atchison, Claudio Fronterre, Peter J Diggle, Deborah Ashby, Christl A Donnelly and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science (New York, N.Y.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

15 authors.

Steven RileySchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK. s.riley@imperial.ac.uk p.elliott@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7904-4804
Kylie E C AinslieSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5419-7206
Oliver EalesSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8086-4495
Caroline E WaltersSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1882-0886
Haowei WangSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4753-8783
Christina AtchisonSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8304-7389
Claudio FronterreCentre for Health Informatics, Computing, and Statistics (CHICAS), Lancaster Medical School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6723-9727
Peter J DiggleCentre for Health Informatics, Computing, and Statistics (CHICAS), Lancaster Medical School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Deborah AshbySchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3146-7466
Christl A DonnellySchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0195-2463
Graham CookeDepartment of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6475-5056
Wendy BarclayDepartment of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3948-0895
Helen WardSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8238-5036
Ara DarziImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7815-7989
Paul ElliottSchool of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK. s.riley@imperial.ac.uk p.elliott@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7511-5684

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_19012Medical Research Council MC_PC_20029Medical Research Council MR/J008761/1Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surveillance of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has mainly relied on case reporting, which is biased by health service performance, test availability, and test-seeking behaviors. We report a community-wide national representative surveillance program in England based on self-administered swab results from ~594,000 individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms, between May and the beginning of September 2020. The epidemic declined between May and July 2020 but then increased gradually from mid-August, accelerating into early September 2020 at the start of the second wave. When compared with cases detected through routine surveillance, we report here a longer period of decline and a younger age distribution. Representative community sampling for SARS-CoV-2 can substantially improve situational awareness and feed into the public health response even at low prevalence.

Indexed as

Epidemiological MonitoringPublic Health SurveillanceAdolescentAdultAgedBasic Reproduction NumberChildChild, PreschoolCOVID-19COVID-19 Nucleic Acid TestingEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemics

Identifiers

PMID33893241
PMCPMC8158959

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.