Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35550674›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2022

Lessons from past pandemics: a systematic review of evidence-based, cost-effective interventions to suppress COVID-19.

Carl-Etienne Juneau, Tomas Pueyo, Matt Bell, Genevieve Gee, Pablo Collazzo, Louise Potvin

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. COVID-19 Prevention and Control Measures in Workplace Settings: A Rapid Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Carl-Etienne JuneauDirection Régionale de Santé Publique, CIUSSS du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Tomas PueyoCOVID-19 Work Group, Washington, D.C., USA.
Matt BellCOVID-19 Work Group, Washington, D.C., USA.
Genevieve GeeCOVID-19 Work Group, Washington, D.C., USA.
Pablo CollazzoDanube University, Dr. Karl Dorrek Straße 30, 3500, Krems, Austria. pablo.collazzo@donau-uni.ac.at.ORCID 0000-0002-0992-7828
Louise PotvinÉcole de Santé Publique, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, Succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, QC, H3C 3J7, Canada.
Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal · CAUniversität für Weiterbildung Krems · ATUniversité de Montréal · CA

Funding

CIHR CRC 950-232541
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn an unparalleled global response, during the COVID-19 pandemic, 90 countries asked 3.9 billion people to stay home. Yet other countries avoided lockdowns and focused on other strategies, like contact tracing. How effective and cost-effective are these strategies? We aimed to provide a comprehensive summary of the evidence on past pandemic controls, with a focus on cost-effectiveness.

methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE (1946 to April week 2, 2020) and EMBASE (1974 to April 17, 2020) were searched using a range of terms related to pandemic control. Articles reporting on the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of at least one intervention were included.

resultsWe found 1653 papers; 62 were included. The effectiveness of hand-washing and face masks was supported by randomized trials. These measures were highly cost-effective. For other interventions, only observational and modelling studies were found. They suggested that (1) the most cost-effective interventions are swift contact tracing and case isolation, surveillance networks, protective equipment for healthcare workers, and early vaccination (when available); (2) home quarantines and stockpiling antivirals are less cost-effective; (3) social distancing measures like workplace and school closures are effective but costly, making them the least cost-effective options; (4) combinations are more cost-effective than single interventions; and (5) interventions are more cost-effective when adopted early. For 2009 H1N1 influenza, contact tracing was estimated to be 4363 times more cost-effective than school closure ($2260 vs. $9,860,000 per death prevented). CONCLUSIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS: For COVID-19, a cautious interpretation suggests that (1) workplace and school closures are effective but costly, especially when adopted late, and (2) scaling up as early as possible a combination of interventions that includes hand-washing, face masks, ample protective equipment for healthcare workers, and swift contact tracing and case isolation is likely to be the most cost-effective strategy.

Indexed as

COVID-19Influenza A Virus, H1N1 SubtypeCommunicable Disease ControlCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Cost-effectivenessCOVID-19Epidemic interventionsNon-pharmaceutical interventionsOutbreak controlPandemic control

Identifiers

PMID35550674
PMCPMC9096744
OpenAlexW4280535866

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.