ArticlePloS one2021
COVID-19 control strategies and intervention effects in resource limited settings: A modeling study.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID-19: a rapid review.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- A Review of Protein-Based COVID-19 Vaccines: From Monovalent to Multivalent Formulations.Vaccines · 2024Review
- The Epidemiological and Economic Impact of COVID-19 in Kazakhstan: An Agent-Based Modeling.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Economic evaluation of strategies against coronavirus: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2023Review
- COVID-19 Vaccines: An Overview of Different Platforms.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Epidemiological characterization of COVID-19 in displaced populations of South Sudan.The Pan African medical journal · 2022Article
- Expected Impacts of COVID-19: Considering Resource-Limited Countries and Vulnerable Population.Frontiers in public healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMany countries with weaker health systems are struggling to put together a coherent strategy against the COVID-19 epidemic. We explored COVID-19 control strategies that could offer the greatest benefit in resource limited settings.
methodsUsing an age-structured SEIR model, we explored the effects of COVID-19 control interventions-a lockdown, physical distancing measures, and active case finding (testing and isolation, contact tracing and quarantine)-implemented individually and in combination to control a hypothetical COVID-19 epidemic in Kathmandu (population 2.6 million), Nepal.
resultsA month-long lockdown will delay peak demand for hospital beds by 36 days, as compared to a base scenario of no intervention (peak demand at 108 days (IQR 97-119); a 2 month long lockdown will delay it by 74 days, without any difference in annual mortality, or healthcare demand volume. Year-long physical distancing measures will reduce peak demand to 36% (IQR 23%-46%) and annual morality to 67% (IQR 48%-77%) of base scenario. Following a month long lockdown with ongoing physical distancing measures and an active case finding intervention that detects 5% of the daily infection burden could reduce projected morality and peak demand by more than 99%.
conclusionLimited resource settings are best served by a combination of early and aggressive case finding with ongoing physical distancing measures to control the COVID-19 epidemic. A lockdown may be helpful until combination interventions can be put in place but is unlikely to reduce annual mortality or healthcare demand.
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.