Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34534517›Full record

Trial reportLancet (London, England)2021

Daily testing for contacts of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection and attendance and SARS-CoV-2 transmission in English secondary schools and colleges: an open-label, cluster-randomised trial.

Bernadette C Young, David W Eyre, Saroj Kendrick, Chris White, Sylvester Smith, George Beveridge, Toby Nonnenmacher, Fegor Ichofu, Joseph Hillier, Sarah Oakley and 21 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lancet (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
16.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 117 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Antigen Testing (January 2023).Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024
    Guideline
  4. Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. SARS-CoV-2 Circulation in the School Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  12. Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemicThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

31 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Bernadette C YoungNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: bernadette.young@ndm.ox.ac.uk.
David W EyreNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Big Data Institute, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Saroj KendrickDepartment of Health and Social Care, London, UK.
Chris WhiteDepartment of Health and Social Care, London, UK.
Sylvester SmithDepartment of Health and Social Care, London, UK.
George BeveridgeDepartment of Health and Social Care, London, UK.
Toby NonnenmacherDepartment of Health and Social Care, London, UK.
Fegor IchofuDepartment of Health and Social Care, London, UK.
Joseph HillierDepartment of Health and Social Care, London, UK.
Sarah OakleyMicrobiology Department, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Ian DiamondOffice for National Statistics, Newport, UK.
Emma RourkeOffice for National Statistics, Newport, UK.
Fiona DaweOffice for National Statistics, Newport, UK.
Ieuan DayOffice for National Statistics, Newport, UK.
Lisa DaviesOffice for National Statistics, Newport, UK.
Paul StaiteOffice for National Statistics, Newport, UK.
Andrea LaceyOffice for National Statistics, Newport, UK.
James McCraeOffice for National Statistics, Newport, UK.
Ffion JonesOffice for National Statistics, Newport, UK.
Joseph KellyOffice for National Statistics, Newport, UK.
Urszula BankiewiczOffice for National Statistics, Newport, UK.
Sarah TunkelDepartment of Health and Social Care, London, UK.
Richard OvensDeloitte MCS, London, UK.
David ChapmanDeloitte MCS, London, UK.
Vineta BhallaDeloitte MCS, London, UK.
Peter MarksDepartment of Health and Social Care, London, UK.
Nick HicksNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Health and Social Care, London, UK; Public Health England, London, UK.
Tom FowlerWilliam Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Susan HopkinsPublic Health England, London, UK.
Lucy YardleyHealth Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Tim E A PetoNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Office for National Statistics · GBDepartment of Health and Social Care · GBDeloitte (United Kingdom) · GBNational Institute for Health Research · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBPublic Health England · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBWilliam Harvey Research Institute · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/W02067X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSchool-based COVID-19 contacts in England have been asked to self-isolate at home, missing key educational opportunities. We trialled daily testing of contacts as an alternative to assess whether this resulted in similar control of transmission, while allowing more school attendance.

methodsWe did an open-label, cluster-randomised, controlled trial in secondary schools and further education colleges in England. Schools were randomly assigned (1:1) to self-isolation of school-based COVID-19 contacts for 10 days (control) or to voluntary daily lateral flow device (LFD) testing for 7 days with LFD-negative contacts remaining at school (intervention). Randomisation was stratified according to school type and size, presence of a sixth form, presence of residential students, and proportion of students eligible for free school meals. Group assignment was not masked during procedures or analysis. Coprimary outcomes in all students and staff were COVID-19-related school absence and symptomatic PCR-confirmed COVID-19, adjusted for community case rates, to estimate within-school transmission (non-inferiority margin <50% relative increase). Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis using quasi-Poisson regression, also estimating complier average causal effects (CACE). This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN18100261.

findingsBetween March 18 and May 4, 2021, 204 schools were taken through the consent process, during which three decided not to participate further. 201 schools were randomly assigned (control group n=99, intervention group n=102) in the 10-week study (April 19-May 10, 2021), which continued until the pre-appointed stop date (June 27, 2021). 76 control group schools and 86 intervention group schools actively participated; additional national data allowed most non-participating schools to be included in analysis of coprimary outcomes. 2432 (42·4%) of 5763 intervention group contacts participated in daily contact testing. There were 657 symptomatic PCR-confirmed infections during 7 782 537 days-at-risk (59·1 per 100 000 per week) in the control group and 740 during 8 379 749 days-at-risk (61·8 per 100 000 per week) in the intervention group (intention-to-treat adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] 0·96 [95% CI 0·75-1·22]; p=0·72; CACE aIRR 0·86 [0·55-1·34]). Among students and staff, there were 59 422 (1·62%) COVID-19-related absences during 3 659 017 person-school-days in the control group and 51 541 (1·34%) during 3 845 208 person-school-days in the intervention group (intention-to-treat aIRR 0·80 [95% CI 0·54-1·19]; p=0·27; CACE aIRR 0·61 [0·30-1·23]).

interpretationDaily contact testing of school-based contacts was non-inferior to self-isolation for control of COVID-19 transmission, with similar rates of symptomatic infections among students and staff with both approaches. Infection rates in school-based contacts were low, with very few school contacts testing positive. Daily contact testing should be considered for implementation as a safe alternative to home isolation following school-based exposures.

fundingUK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Indexed as

SchoolsAdolescentAdultAgedChildCommunicable Disease ControlCOVID-19COVID-19 Nucleic Acid TestingCOVID-19 Serological TestingCOVID-19 TestingEducational PersonnelEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID34534517
PMCPMC8439620
OpenAlexW3200929454

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.