Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33959956›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2020

Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID-19: a rapid review.

Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit, Verena Mayr, Andreea Iulia Dobrescu, Andrea Chapman, Emma Persad, Irma Klerings, Gernot Wagner, Uwe Siebert, Dominic Ledinger, Casey Zachariah and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 186 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
186citing papers in PubMed, 13 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

186 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. The use of masks to protect against respiratory infections: An umbrella review.Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica (English ed.) · 2021
    Pooled it
  9. An Umbrella Review of the Work and Health Impacts of Working in an Epidemic/Pandemic Environment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  10. Parent-Infant Skin-to-Skin Contact and Stress Regulation: A Systematic Review of the Literature.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

126 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Barbara Nussbaumer-StreitCochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria.
Verena MayrCochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria.
Andreea Iulia DobrescuCochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria.
Andrea ChapmanCochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria.
Emma PersadCochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria.
Irma KleringsCochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria.
Gernot WagnerCochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria.
Uwe SiebertDepartment of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.
Dominic LedingerDonau-Universität Krems, Krems, Austria.
Casey ZachariahCochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria.
Gerald GartlehnerCochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly emerging disease classified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). To support the WHO with their recommendations on quarantine, we conducted a rapid review on the effectiveness of quarantine during severe coronavirus outbreaks.

objectivesTo assess the effects of quarantine (alone or in combination with other measures) of individuals who had contact with confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19, who travelled from countries with a declared outbreak, or who live in regions with high disease transmission. SEARCH

methodsAn information specialist searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and updated the search in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, WHO Global Index Medicus, Embase, and CINAHL on 23 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cohort studies, case-control studies, time series, interrupted time series, case series, and mathematical modelling studies that assessed the effect of any type of quarantine to control COVID-19. We also included studies on SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) as indirect evidence for the current coronavirus outbreak. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened abstracts and titles in duplicate. Two review authors then independently screened all potentially relevant full-text publications. One review author extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE and a second review author checked the assessment. We used three different tools to assess risk of bias, depending on the study design: ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies of interventions, a tool provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-randomised, non-controlled studies, and recommendations from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) for modelling studies. We rated the certainty of evidence for the four primary outcomes: incidence, onward transmission, mortality, and costs. MAIN

resultsWe included 51 studies; 4 observational studies and 28 modelling studies on COVID-19, one observational and one modelling study on MERS, three observational and 11 modelling studies on SARS, and three modelling studies on SARS and other infectious diseases. Because of the diverse methods of measurement and analysis across the outcomes of interest, we could not conduct a meta-analysis and undertook a narrative synthesis. We judged risk of bias to be moderate for 2/3 non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) and serious for 1/3 NRSI. We rated risk of bias moderate for 4/5 non-controlled cohort studies, and serious for 1/5. We rated modelling studies as having no concerns for 13 studies, moderate concerns for 17 studies and major concerns for 13 studies. Quarantine for individuals who were in contact with a confirmed/suspected COVID-19 case in comparison to no quarantine Modelling studies consistently reported a benefit of the simulated quarantine measures, for example, quarantine of people exposed to confirmed or suspected cases may have averted 44% to 96% of incident cases and 31% to 76% of deaths compared to no measures based on different scenarios (incident cases: 6 modelling studies on COVID-19, 1 on SARS; mortality: 2 modelling studies on COVID-19, 1 on SARS, low-certainty evidence). Studies also indicated that there may be a reduction in the basic reproduction number ranging from 37% to 88% due to the implementation of quarantine (5 modelling studies on COVID-19, low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the earlier quarantine measures are implemented, the greater the cost savings may be (2 modelling studies on SARS). Quarantine in combination with other measures to contain COVID-19 in comparison to other measures without quarantine or no measures When the models combined quarantine with other prevention and control measures, such as school closures, travel restrictions and social distancing, the models demonstrated that there may be a larger effect on the reduction of new cases, transmissions and deaths than measures without quarantine or no interventions (incident cases: 9 modelling studies on COVID-19; onward transmission: 5 modelling studies on COVID-19; mortality: 5 modelling studies on COVID-19, low-certainty evidence). Studies on SARS and MERS were consistent with findings from the studies on COVID-19. Quarantine for individuals travelling from a country with a declared COVID-19 outbreak compared to no quarantine Very low-certainty evidence indicated that the effect of quarantine of travellers from a country with a declared outbreak on reducing incidence and deaths may be small for SARS, but might be larger for COVID-19 (2 observational studies on COVID-19 and 2 observational studies on SARS). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe current evidence is limited because most studies on COVID-19 are mathematical modelling studies that make different assumptions on important model parameters. Findings consistently indicate that quarantine is important in reducing incidence and mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic, although there is uncertainty over the magnitude of the effect. Early implementation of quarantine and combining quarantine with other public health measures is important to ensure effectiveness. In order to maintain the best possible balance of measures, decision makers must constantly monitor the outbreak and the impact of the measures implemented. This review was originally commissioned by the WHO and supported by Danube-University-Krems. The update was self-initiated by the review authors.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalPandemicsPublic HealthQuarantineBiasCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19HumansIncidenceObservational Studies as TopicPhysical DistancingSARS-CoV-2SchoolsSevere Acute Respiratory SyndromeTravelWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID33959956
PMCPMC8133397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.