SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2020
Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID-19: a rapid review.
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.
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
186 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- How are countries responding differently to COVID-19: a systematic review of guidelines on isolation measures.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Epidemics, Lockdown Measures and Vulnerable Populations: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review of the Evidence of Impacts on Mother and Child Health in Low-and Lower-Middle-Income Countries.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Pooled it
- The global evolution of mental health problems during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.Journal of affective disorders · 2022Pooled it
- Predictive Models for Forecasting Public Health Scenarios: Practical Experiences Applied during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Chinese Patent Medicine Shufeng Jiedu Capsules as an Adjuvant Therapy for Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Social distancing measures: barriers to their implementation and how they can be overcome - a systematic review.European journal of public health · 2021Pooled it
- Mass quarantine and mental health during COVID-19: A meta-analysis.Journal of affective disorders · 2021Pooled it
- The use of masks to protect against respiratory infections: An umbrella review.Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica (English ed.) · 2021Pooled it
- An Umbrella Review of the Work and Health Impacts of Working in an Epidemic/Pandemic Environment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Parent-Infant Skin-to-Skin Contact and Stress Regulation: A Systematic Review of the Literature.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- International travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Snitches Get Stitches and End Up in Ditches: A Systematic Review of the Factors Associated With Whistleblowing Intentions.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Pooled it
- The early response of plastic and reconstructive surgery services to the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review.Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS · 2020Pooled it
- Tele-mentoring - a way to expand laparoscopic simulator training for medical students over large distances: a prospective randomized pilot study.BMC medical education · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Breaking Trust: How Covid-19 Communication Failures Undermined Public Confidence in US Health Officials-A Narrative Review.Public health challenges · 2026Review
- Prevalence and Correlates of Depressive Symptoms in Canada During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Based on 144 Studies Including 406,043 Participants: Prévalence et corrélats des symptômes dépressifs au Canada pendant la pandémie de COVID-19 : revue systématique et méta-analyse de 144 études comprenant 406 043 participants.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2026Review
- High-resolution contact data and infectious disease absenteeism in kindergarten populations.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- SARS-CoV-2 and Cancer Biology: Exploring the Mechanistic Links.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Review
- Review
126 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.