Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34352612›Full record

ArticlePublic health2021

A scoping review of the experience of implementing population testing for SARS-CoV-2.

C R Foster, F Campbell, L Blank, A J Cantrell, M Black, A C K Lee

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Impact of Mass Workplace COVID-19 Rapid Testing on Health and Healthcare Resource Savings.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

C R FosterSchool of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK. Electronic address: clare.foster@sheffield.ac.uk.
F CampbellSchool of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK.
L BlankSchool of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK.
A J CantrellSchool of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK.
M BlackSchool of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK.
A C K LeeSchool of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) - also known as the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) - pandemic has led to the swift introduction of population testing programmes in many countries across the world, using testing modalities such as drive-through, walk-through, mobile and home visiting programmes. Here, we provide an overview of the literature describing the experience of implementing population testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). STUDY

designScoping review.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review using Embase, Medline and the Cochrane library in addition to a grey literature search. We identified indicators relevant to process, quality and resource outcomes related to each testing modality.

resultsIn total, 2999 titles were identified from the academic literature and the grey literature search, of which 22 were relevant. Most studies were from the USA and the Republic of Korea. Drive-through testing centres were the most common testing modality evaluated and these provided a rapid method of testing whilst minimising resource use.

conclusionsThe evidence base for population testing lacks high quality studies, however, the literature provides evaluations of the advantages and limitations of different testing modalities. There is a need for robust evidence in this area to ensure that testing is deployed in a safe and effective manner in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsHumansRepublic of KoreaSARS-CoV-2COVID-19Mass testingPopulation testingSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID34352612
PMCPMC8233909

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.