Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34132978›Full record

ArticleHealth care management science2021

A case for location based contact tracing.

Atul Pokharel, Robert Soulé, Avi Silberschatz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health care management science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Atul PokharelRobert F. Wagner School of Public Service, New York University, New York, NY, 10012, USA. pokharel@nyu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0596-5525
Robert SouléDepartment of Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520-8285, USA.
Avi SilberschatzDepartment of Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06520-8285, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present an evaluation of the effectiveness of manual contact tracing compared to bulletin board contact tracing. Classical contact tracing relies on reaching individuals who have been in proximity to an infectious person. A bulletin board approach focuses on identifying locations visited by an infectious person, and then contacting those who were at those locations. We present results comparing their effects on the overall reproductive number as well as the incidence and prevalence of disease. We evaluate them by building a new agent based simulation (ABS) model using the Susceptible Exposed Infectious and Recovered (SEIR) framework for disease spread. We conduct simulation experiments to quantify the effectiveness of these two models of contact tracing by calibrating the model to be compatible with SARS-CoV-2. We find that bulletin board contact tracing gives comparable results in terms of the reproductive number, duration, prevalence and incidence but is less resource intensive, easier to implement and offers a wider range of privacy options. Our experiments show that location-based bulletin board contact tracing can improve manual contact tracing.

Indexed as

Contact TracingCOVID-19HumansIncidencePrevalenceSARS-CoV-2Agent based simulationBulletin boardContact tracingCovid-19

Identifiers

PMID34132978
PMCPMC8206884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.