ArticleBMC public health2023
COVID-19 testing protocols to guide duration of isolation: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic Evaluation of COVID-19 Screening Tests and Surveillance Strategies in Low-Income, Middle-Income, and High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Pooled it
- How are countries responding differently to COVID-19: a systematic review of guidelines on isolation measures.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Cost-benefit analysis of the quarantine policy during the outbreak of the Covid-19 virus in Iran.Health economics review · 2025Article
- Article
- A framework for counterfactual analysis, strategy evaluation, and control of epidemics using reproduction number estimates.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Modelling the effectiveness of an isolation strategy for managing mpox outbreaks with variable infectiousness profiles.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 led to a steep rise in transmissions, and emerging variants continue to influence case rates across the US. As public tolerance for isolation abated, CDC guidance on duration of at-home isolation of COVID-19 cases was shortened to five days if no symptoms, with no laboratory test requirement, despite more cautious approaches advocated by other federal experts.
methodsWe conducted a decision tree analysis of alternative protocols for ending COVID-19 isolation, estimating net costs (direct and productivity), secondary infections, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of input uncertainty.
resultsPer 100 individuals, five-day isolation had 23 predicted secondary infections and a net cost of $33,000. Symptom check on day five (CDC guidance) yielded a 23% decrease in secondary infections (to 17.8), with a net cost of $45,000. Antigen testing on day six yielded 2.9 secondary infections and $63,000 in net costs. This protocol, compared to the next best protocol of antigen testing on day five of a maximum eight-day isolation, cost an additional $1,300 per secondary infection averted. Antigen or polymerase chain reaction testing on day five were dominated (more expensive and less effective) versus antigen testing on day six. Results were qualitatively robust to uncertainty in key inputs.
conclusionsA six-day isolation with antigen testing to confirm the absence of contagious virus appears the most effective and cost-effective de-isolation protocol to shorten at-home isolation of individuals with COVID-19.
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.