ArticleViruses2023
Border Control for Infectious Respiratory Disease Pandemics: A Modelling Study for H1N1 and Four Strains of SARS-CoV-2.
Article in Viruses, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Post-pandemic economic recovery relies on border control for safe cross-border movement. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, we investigate whether effective strategies generalize across diseases and variants. For four SARS-CoV-2 variants and influenza A-H1N1, we simulated 21 strategy families of varying test types and frequencies, quantifying expected transmission risk, relative to no control, by strategy family and quarantine length. We also determined minimum quarantine lengths to suppress relative risk below given thresholds. SARS-CoV-2 variants showed similar relative risk across strategy families and quarantine lengths, with at most 2 days' between-variant difference in minimum quarantine lengths. ART-based and PCR-based strategies showed comparable effectiveness, with regular testing strategies requiring at most 9 days. For influenza A-H1N1, ART-based strategies were ineffective. Daily ART testing reduced relative risk only 9% faster than without regular testing. PCR-based strategies were moderately effective, with daily PCR (0-day delay) testing requiring 16 days for the second-most stringent threshold. Viruses with high typical viral loads and low transmission risk given low viral loads, such as SARS-CoV-2, are effectively controlled with moderate-sensitivity tests (ARTs) and modest quarantine periods. Viruses with low typical viral loads and substantial transmission risk at low viral loads, such as influenza A-H1N1, require high-sensitivity tests (PCR) and longer quarantine periods.
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.