Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34784502›Full record

ReviewPublic health2021

Development of a critical appraisal tool for models predicting the impact of 'test, trace, and protect' programmes on COVID-19 transmission.

J W Frank, G Marion, A Doeschl-Wilson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

J W FrankUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Hall, Edinburgh EH8 9DX, Scotland, UK. Electronic address: john.frank@ed.ac.uk.
G MarionBiomathematics and Statistics Scotland, James Clerk Maxwell Building, Edinburgh EH9 3FD, Scotland, UK. Electronic address: glenn.marion@bioss.ac.uk.
A Doeschl-WilsonThe Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Roslin Institute Building, Easter Bush EH25 9RG, Scotland, UK. Electronic address: andrea.wilson@roslin.ed.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo develop a critical appraisal tool for non-computational-specialist public health professionals to assess the quality and relevance of modelling studies about Test and Trace (and Protect - TTP) programmes' impact on COVID-19 transmission. STUDY

designDecision-making tool development.

methodsUsing Tugwell et al.'s 1985 Health Care Effectiveness equation as a conceptual framework, combined with a purposive search of the relevant early modeling literature, we developed six critical appraisal questions for the rapid assessment of modeling studies related to the evaluation of TTP programmes' effectiveness.

resultsBy applying the critical appraisal tool to selected recent COVID-19 modeling studies, we demonstrate how models can be evaluated using the six questions to evaluate internal and external validity and relevance.

conclusionsThese six critical appraisal questions are able to discriminate between modeling studies of higher and lower quality and relevance to evaluating TTP programmes' impact. However, these questions require independent validation in a larger and systematic sample of relevant modeling studies which have appeared in later stages of the pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19HumansPandemicsPublic HealthSARS-CoV-2COVID-19Critical appraisalDisease transmissionEvaluation of contact tracingMathematical model(s)Test and trace

Identifiers

PMID34784502
PMCPMC8520882

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.