Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34362333›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2021

The impact of phased university reopenings on mitigating the spread of COVID-19: a modeling study.

Lior Rennert, Corey A Kalbaugh, Christopher McMahan, Lu Shi, Christopher C Colenda

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lior RennertDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Clemson University, 529 Edwards Hall, Clemson, SC, USA. liorr@clemson.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-5275-7273
Corey A KalbaughDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Clemson University, 529 Edwards Hall, Clemson, SC, USA.
Christopher McMahanSchool of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA.
Lu ShiDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Clemson University, 529 Edwards Hall, Clemson, SC, USA.
Christopher C ColendaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Clemson University · USWake Forest University · US

Funding

Clemson University 1502934Clemson University (US) 1502934
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral American universities have experienced COVID-19 outbreaks, risking the health of their students, employees, and local communities. Such large outbreaks have drained university resources and forced several institutions to shift to remote learning and send students home, further contributing to community disease spread. Many of these outbreaks can be attributed to the large numbers of active infections returning to campus, alongside high-density social events that typically take place at the semester start. In the absence of effective mitigation measures (e.g., high-frequency testing), a phased return of students to campus is a practical intervention to minimize the student population size and density early in the semester, reduce outbreaks, preserve institutional resources, and ultimately help mitigate disease spread in communities.

methodsWe develop dynamic compartmental SARS-CoV-2 transmission models to assess the impact of a phased reopening, in conjunction with pre-arrival testing, on minimizing on-campus outbreaks and preserving university resources (measured by isolation bed capacity). We assumed an on-campus population of N = 7500, 40% of infected students require isolation, 10 day isolation period, pre-arrival testing removes 90% of incoming infections, and that phased reopening returns one-third of the student population to campus each month. We vary the disease reproductive number (R

resultsCompared to pre-arrival testing only or neither intervention, phased reopening with pre-arrival testing reduced peak active infections by 3 and 22% (R

conclusionUnless highly effective mitigation measures are in place, a reopening with pre-arrival testing substantially reduces peak number of active infections throughout the semester and preserves university resources compared to the simultaneous return of all students to campus. Phased reopenings allow institutions to ensure sufficient resources are in place, improve disease mitigation strategies, or if needed, preemptively move online before the return of additional students to campus, thus preventing unnecessary harm to students, institutional faculty and staff, and local communities.

Indexed as

COVID-19UniversitiesDisease OutbreaksHumansSARS-CoV-2StudentsCOVID-19MitigationModelingPhased returnSARS-CoV-2StudentsTestingUniversity

Identifiers

PMID34362333
PMCPMC8343346
OpenAlexW3190729836

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.