Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36396316›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

A systematic review of strategies adopted to scale up COVID-19 testing in low-, middle- and high-income countries.

Winters Muttamba, Bernadette Ann-Marie O'Hare, Vibhor Saxena, Mudarshiru Bbuye, Parul Tyagi, Andrew Ramsay, Bruce Kirenga, Wilber Sabiiti

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A Cross-Border Biorisk Toolkit for Healthcare Professionals.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies: A scoping review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023
    Review
  13. 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

8 authors.

Winters MuttambaSchool of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK muttamba@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-7154-2964
Bernadette Ann-Marie O'HareSchool of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Vibhor SaxenaSchool of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Mudarshiru BbuyeMakerere University Lung Institute, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.
Parul TyagiSchool of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Andrew RamsaySchool of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Bruce KirengaMakerere University Lung Institute, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.ORCID 0000-0002-2023-2840
Wilber SabiitiSchool of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4742-2791

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe undertook a systematic review of strategies adopted to scale up COVID-19 testing in countries across income levels to identify successful approaches and facilitate learning.

methodsScholarly articles in English from PubMed, Google scholar and Google search engine describing strategies used to increase COVID-19 testing in countries were reviewed. Deductive analysis to allocate relevant text from the reviewed publications/reports to the a priori themes was done. MAIN

resultsThe review covered 32 countries, including 11 high-income, 2 upper-middle-income, 13 lower-middle-income and 6 low-income countries. Most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) increased the number of laboratories available for testing and deployed sample collection and shipment to the available laboratories. The high-income countries (HICs) that is, South Korea, Germany, Singapore and USA developed molecular diagnostics with accompanying regulatory and legislative framework adjustments to ensure the rapid development and use of the tests. HICs like South Korea leveraged existing manufacturing systems to develop tests, while the LMICs leveraged existing national disease control programmes (HIV, tuberculosis, malaria) to increase testing. Continent-wide, African Centres for Disease Control and Prevention-led collaborations increased testing across most African countries through building capacity by providing testing kits and training.

conclusionStrategies taken appear to reflect the existing systems or economies of scale that a particular country could leverage. LMICs, for example, drew on the infectious disease control programmes already in place to harness expertise and laboratory capacity for COVID-19 testing. There however might have been strategies adopted by other countries but were never published and thus did not appear anywhere in the searched databases.

Indexed as

COVID-19Developing CountriesCOVID-19 TestingDeveloped CountriesHumansIncomeCOVID-19health policypublic health

Identifiers

PMID36396316
PMCPMC9676418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.