ArticleScientific reports2022
Replacing quarantine of COVID-19 contacts with periodic testing is also effective in mitigating the risk of transmission.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimization of Screening Strategies for COVID-19: Scoping Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- A population-based study of the trend in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic modalities from the beginning of the pandemic to the Omicron surge in Kyoto City, Kyoto, Japan.BMC public health · 2023Observational
- Updates on the Biofunctionalization of Gold Nanoparticles for the Rapid and Sensitive Multiplatform Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Virus and Its Proteins: From Computational Models to Validation in Human Samples.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Optimizing the nucleic acid screening strategy to mitigate regional outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in China: a modeling study.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2023Article
- Risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the close contacts in a small rural area in the Veneto Region (NE-Italy): past evidence for future scenarios.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The quarantine of identified close contacts has been vital to reducing transmission rates and averting secondary infection risk before symptom onset and by asymptomatic cases. The effectiveness of this contact tracing strategy to mitigate transmission is sensitive to the adherence to quarantines, which may be lower for longer quarantine periods or in vaccinated populations (where perceptions of risk are reduced). This study develops a simulation model to evaluate contact tracing strategies based on the sequential testing of identified contacts after exposure as an alternative to quarantines, in which contacts are isolated only after confirmation by a positive test. The analysis considers different number and types of tests (PCR and lateral flow antigen tests (LFA)) to identify the cost-effective testing policies that minimize the expected infecting days post-exposure considering different levels of testing capacity. This analysis suggests that even a limited number of tests can be effective at reducing secondary infection risk: two LFA tests (with optimal timing) avert infectiousness at a level that is comparable to 14-day quarantine with 80-90% adherence, or equivalently, 7-9 day quarantine with full adherence (depending on the sensitivity of the LFA test). Adding a third test (PCR or LFA) reaches the efficiency of a 14-day quarantine with 90-100% adherence. These results are robust to the exposure dates of the contact, test sensitivity of LFA and alternative models of viral load evolution, which suggests that simple testing rules can be effective for improving contact tracing in settings where strict quarantine adherence is difficult to implement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.