Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36609431›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Efficacy and effectiveness of case isolation and quarantine during a growing phase of the COVID-19 epidemic in Finland.

Kari Auranen, Mikhail Shubin, Elina Erra, Sanna Isosomppi, Jukka Kontto, Tuija Leino, Timo Lukkarinen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Toward optimal disease surveillance with graph-based active learning.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Kari AuranenDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Turku, Vesilinnankatu 5, 20014, Turku, Finland. kari.auranen@utu.fi.
Mikhail ShubinDepartment of Health Security, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Mannerheimintie 166, 00271, Helsinki, Finland.
Elina ErraEpidemiological Operations Unit, City of Helsinki, Toinen linja 4 A, P.O. Box 6008, 00530, Helsinki, Finland.
Sanna IsosomppiEpidemiological Operations Unit, City of Helsinki, Toinen linja 4 A, P.O. Box 6008, 00530, Helsinki, Finland.
Jukka KonttoDepartment of Health Security, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Mannerheimintie 166, 00271, Helsinki, Finland.
Tuija LeinoDepartment of Health Security, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Mannerheimintie 166, 00271, Helsinki, Finland.
Timo LukkarinenEpidemiological Operations Unit, City of Helsinki, Toinen linja 4 A, P.O. Box 6008, 00530, Helsinki, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Based on data collected as part of the contact tracing activity of the City of Helsinki Epidemiological Operations Unit, we evaluated the efficacy and effectiveness of isolating SARS-CoV-2 cases and quarantining their exposed contacts during a mildly growing phase of the COVID-19 epidemic in Finland in autumn 2020. Based on the observed symptom-to-symptom intervals in 1016 pairs of primary and secondary cases, we estimated that without case isolation or quarantine 40[Formula: see text] (90[Formula: see text] credible interval, CI 25-59) of transmission would have occurred on the day of or after symptom onset. One third of SARS-CoV-2 cases (N = 1521) had initially been quarantined, with a self-reported time until isolation (quarantine) of 0.8 days before symptom onset. This delay translates into an efficacy of 50[Formula: see text] (90[Formula: see text] CI 40-63) of averting secondary infections per quarantined case. Due to later isolation (mean 2.6 days after symptoms), the efficacy was smaller (24[Formula: see text]; 90[Formula: see text] CI 12-41) in those two third of the cases (N = 3101) whose isolation was prompted by their symptoms, i.e. without being previously quarantined. At the population level, we evaluated the effectiveness of case isolation and quarantine on the growth rate of the COVID-19 epidemic in the autumn of 2020. Under a wide range of underlying assumptions, the rate would have been at least 2 times higher without case isolation and quarantine. The numbers needed to isolate or quarantine to prevent one secondary case were 2 and 20, respectively.

Indexed as

COVID-19Contact TracingFinlandHumansQuarantineSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID36609431
PMCPMC9817446

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.