Trial reportThe Lancet. Respiratory medicine2022
Daily use of lateral flow devices by contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases to enable exemption from isolation compared with standard self-isolation to reduce onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in England: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.
Trial report in The Lancet. Respiratory medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies in reducing COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions as implemented in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of testing, contact tracing and isolation interventions among the general population on reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2023Pooled it
- Can self-testing be enhanced to hasten safe return of healthcare workers in pandemics? Random order, open label trial using two manufacturers' SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow devices concurrently and nested viral culture study.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Trial
- Population health and implementation outcomes of self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 using antigen detecting diagnostics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Assessing the Feasibility and Acceptability of a Bespoke Large Language Model Pipeline to Extract Data From Different Study Designs for Public Health Evidence Reviews.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Belgium's SARS-CoV-2 contact tracing effectively curbed transmission, yet challenges persist in terms of delays, scalability and population adherence.BMC public health · 2025Article
- A retrospective assessment of forecasting the peak of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 wave in England.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- An online survey among convalescents 5 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection in China.Biosafety and health · 2024Article
- Asymptomatic Children as a Missing Link in Preventing COVID-19 Transmission.Journal of research in health sciences · 2024Article
- Non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce COVID-19 transmission in the UK: a rapid mapping review and interactive evidence gap map.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2024Review
- The evaluation of a rapid microfluidic immunofluorescence antigen test in detecting the infectiousness of COVID-19 patients.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies: A scoping review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Review
- Comparing SARS-CoV-2 testing positivity rates and COVID-19 impact among different isolation strategies: a rapid systematic review and a modelling study.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Testing Strategies in the Diagnosis and Management of COVID-19 Patients in Low-Income Countries: A Scoping Review.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2: can isolation be limited to those who are truly infectious?The Lancet. Respiratory medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the UK, during the study period (April to July, 2021), all contacts of people with COVID-19 were required to self-isolate for 10 days, which had adverse impacts on individuals and society. Avoiding the need to self-isolate for those who remain uninfected would be beneficial. We investigated whether daily use of lateral flow devices (LFDs) to test for SARS-CoV-2, with removal of self-isolation for 24 h if negative, could be a safe alternative to self-isolation as a means to minimise onward transmission of the virus.
methodsWe conducted a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial in adult contacts identified by COVID-19 contact tracing in England. Consenting participants were randomly assigned to self-isolation (single PCR test, 10-day isolation) or daily contact testing (DCT; seven LFD tests, two PCR tests, no isolation if negative on LFD); participants from a single household were assigned to the same group. Participants were prospectively followed up, with the effect of each intervention on onward transmission established from routinely collected NHS Test and Trace contact tracing data for participants who tested PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period and tertiary cases arising from their contacts (ie, secondary contacts). The primary outcome of the study was the attack rate, the percentage of secondary contacts (close contacts of SARS-CoV-2-positive study participants) who became COVID-19 cases (tertiary cases) in each group. Attack rates were derived from Bernoulli regression models using Huber-White (robust) sandwich estimator clustered standard errors. Attack rates were adjusted for household exposure, vaccination status, and ability to work from home. The non-inferiority margin was 1·9%. The primary analysis was a modified intention-to-treat analysis excluding those who actively withdrew from the study as data from these participants were no longer held. This study is registered with the Research Registry (number 6809). Data collection is complete; analysis is ongoing.
findingsBetween April 29 and July 28, 2021, 54 923 eligible individuals were enrolled in the study, with final group allocations (following withdrawals) of 26 123 (52·6%) participants in the DCT group and 23 500 (47·4%) in the self-isolation group. Overall, 4694 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR (secondary cases), 2364 (10·1%) in the self-isolation group and 2330 (8·9%) in the DCT group. Adjusted attack rates (among secondary contacts) were 7·5% in the self-isolation group and 6·3% in the DCT group (difference of -1·2% [95% CI -2·3 to -0·2]; significantly lower than the non-inferiority margin of 1·9%).
interpretationDCT with 24 h exemption from self-isolation for essential activities appears to be non-inferior to self-isolation. This study, which provided evidence for the UK Government's daily lateral flow testing policy for vaccinated contacts of COVID-19 cases, indicated that daily testing with LFDs could allow individuals to reduce the risk of onward transmission while minimising the adverse effects of self-isolation. Although contacts in England are no longer required to isolate, the findings will be relevant for future policy decisions around COVID-19 or other communicable infections.
fundingUK Government Department of Health and Social Care.
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.