Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37170225›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2023

COVID-19 testing protocols to guide duration of isolation: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Sigal Maya, James G Kahn

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sigal MayaPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, 490 Illinois St, Box 0936, 95158, San Francisco, CA, USA. Sigal.Maya@ucsf.edu.
James G KahnPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, 490 Illinois St, Box 0936, 95158, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Lee University · USUniversity of San Francisco · US

Funding

Making Better Decisions: Policy Modeling for AIDS and Drug AbuseR37DA015612 · NIDA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI DOUGLAS K OWENS · 2019 to 2026
$6.3M
NIDA NIH HHS R37 DA015612
6 · The paper itself

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

CoinfectionCOVID-19Cost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisCOVID-19 TestingHumansSARS-CoV-2Antigen testCost-effectivenessCOVID-19IsolationSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID37170225
PMCPMC10173903
OpenAlexW4376135468

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.