Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35690149›Full record

ReviewGastrointestinal endoscopy2022

Risk-based decision-making related to preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 testing in the setting of GI endoscopy: management of risks, evidence, and behavioral health economics.

Naomi Moy, Uwe Dulleck, Ayesha Shah, Helmut Messmann, Aaron P Thrift, Nicholas J Talley, Gerald J Holtmann

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Naomi MoySchool of Economics and Finance, Faculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society and Technology, Queensland University Australia; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Uwe DulleckSchool of Economics and Finance, Faculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society and Technology, Queensland University Australia; Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia; CESifo, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ayesha ShahDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Helmut MessmannDepartment of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Aaron P ThriftSection of Epidemiology and Population Sciences, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Nicholas J TalleyCollege of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Gerald J HoltmannDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia; Australian Gastrointestinal Rearch Alliance, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia; NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Digestive Health, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
The University of Queensland · AUAustralian National University · AUBaylor College of Medicine · USQueensland University of Technology · AUUniversity Hospital Augsburg · DEUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsControversies exist regarding the benefits and most appropriate approach for preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing (eg, rapid antigen test, polymerase chain reaction, or real-time polymerase chain reaction) for outpatients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, such as GI endoscopy, to prevent COVID-19 infections among staff. Guidelines for protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from outpatient procedures varies across medical professional organizations. This study provides an evidence-based decision support tool for key decision-makers (eg, clinicians) to respond to COVID-19 transmission risks and reduce the effect of personal biases.

methodsA scoping review was used to identify relevant factors influencing COVID-19 transmission risk relevant for GI endoscopy. From 12 relevant publications, 8 factors were applicable: test sensitivity, prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the population, age-adjusted SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in the patient cohort, proportion of asymptomatic patients, risk of transmission from asymptomatic carriers, risk reduction by personal protective equipment (PPE), vaccination rates of HCWs, and risk reduction of SAE by vaccination. The probability of a serious adverse event (SAE), such as workplace-acquired infection resulting in HCW death, under various scenarios with preprocedural testing was determined to inform decision-makers of expected costs of reductions in SAEs.

resultsIn a setting of high community transmission, without testing and PPE, 117.5 SAEs per million procedures were estimated to occur, and this was reduced to between .079 and 2.35 SAEs per million procedures with the use of PPE and preprocedural testing. When these variables are used and a range of scenarios are tested, the probability of an SAE was low even without testing but was reduced by preprocedural testing.

conclusionsUnder all scenarios tested, preprocedural testing reduced the SAE risk for HCWs regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 variant. Benefits of preprocedural testing are marginal when community transmission is low (eg, below 10 infections a day per 100,000 population). The proposed decision support tool can assist in developing rational preprocedural testing policies.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2COVID-19 TestingEndoscopy, GastrointestinalHumansInfectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional

Identifiers

PMID35690149
PMCPMC9174097
OpenAlexW4281686965

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.