ArticleFrontiers in public health2023
Cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 screening strategy under China's dynamic zero-case policy.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sleep Disturbance and Its Association With Purchasing Behavior of COVID-19 Medicine Among the Public After the Adjustment of Zero-COVID Policy in China: Results From a Web-Based Survey Study.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Drug stockpiling behavior and its impact on anxiety among the general public in the early stage after the lifting of China's Zero-COVID policy: results from a web-based survey.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- The role of economic evaluation in modelling public health and social measures for pandemic policy: a systematic review.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024Article
- The impact of Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment on COVID-19 outcomes in Chinese patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to optimize the COVID-19 screening strategies under China's dynamic zero-case policy through cost-effectiveness analysis. A total of 9 screening strategies with different screening frequencies and combinations of detection methods were designed. A stochastic agent-based model was used to simulate the progress of the COVID-19 outbreak in scenario I (close contacts were promptly quarantined) and scenario II (close contacts were not promptly quarantined). The primary outcomes included the number of infections, number of close contacts, number of deaths, the duration of the epidemic, and duration of movement restriction. Net monetary benefit (NMB) and the incremental cost-benefit ratio were used to compare the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies. The results indicated that under China's COVID-19 dynamic zero-case policy, high-frequency screening can help contain the spread of the epidemic, reduce the size and burden of the epidemic, and is cost-effective. Mass antigen testing is not cost-effective compared with mass nucleic acid testing in the same screening frequency. It would be more cost-effective to use AT as a supplemental screening tool when NAT capacity is insufficient or when outbreaks are spreading very rapidly.
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.