Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36181719›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2022

Community-based SARS-CoV-2 testing in low-income neighbourhoods in Rotterdam: Results from a pilot study.

Martijn Vink, Zsófia Iglói, Ewout B Fanoy, Janko van Beek, Timo Boelsums, Miranda de Graaf, Helene A C M Voeten, Richard Molenkamp, Marion Pg Koopmans, Fraukje Ef Mevissen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies: A scoping review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023
    Review
  5. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Martijn VinkPublic Health Service (GGD) Rotterdam-Rijnmond, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Zsófia IglóiDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Ewout B FanoyPublic Health Service (GGD) Rotterdam-Rijnmond, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Janko van BeekDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Timo BoelsumsPublic Health Service (GGD) Rotterdam-Rijnmond, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Miranda de GraafDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Helene A C M VoetenPublic Health Service (GGD) Rotterdam-Rijnmond, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Richard MolenkampDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Marion Pg KoopmansDepartment of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Fraukje Ef MevissenPublic Health Service (GGD) Rotterdam-Rijnmond, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
GGD Rotterdam-Rijnmond · NLErasmus University Rotterdam · NLErasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: High incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and low testing uptake were reported in low-income neighbourhoods in Rotterdam. We aimed to improve willingness and access to testing by introducing community-based test facilities, and to evaluate the effectiveness of a rapid antigen detection test (RDT). Methods: Two to eleven test facilities operated consecutively in three low-income neighbourhoods in Rotterdam, offering the options of walk-in or appointments. Background characteristics were collected at intake and one nasopharyngeal swab was taken and processed using both RDT and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Visitors were asked to join a survey for evaluation purposes. Results: In total, 19 773 visitors were tested - 9662 (48.9%) without an appointment. Walk-in visitors were older, lived more often in the proximity of the test facilities, and reported coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-related symptoms less often than by-appointment visitors. For 67.7% of the visitors, this was the first time they got tested. A total of 1211 (6.1%) tested SARS-CoV-2-positive with RT-PCR, of whom 309 (25.5%) were asymptomatic. Test uptake increased among residents of the pilot neighbourhoods, especially in the older age groups, compared to people living in comparable neighbourhoods without community-based testing facilities. RDT detected asymptomatic individuals with 71.8% sensitivity, which was acceptable in this high prevalence setting. Visitors reported positive attitudes towards the test facilities and welcomed the easy access. Conclusions: Offering community-based SARS-CoV-2 testing seems a promising approach for increasing testing uptake among specific populations in low-income neighbourhoods.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2AgedCOVID-19 TestingHumansPilot Projects

Identifiers

PMID36181719
PMCPMC9526478
OpenAlexW4298616278

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.