COVID-19 digital contact tracing worked - heed the lessons for future pandemics.

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.

1. Epidemiological methods in transition: Minimizing biases in classical and digital approaches.PLOS digital health · 2025
   Review
2. Improving COVID-19 contact tracing and testing of exposed individuals in Cameroon using digital health technology: a cluster randomised trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2024
   Article
3. Human-centred artificial intelligence for mobile health sensing: challenges and opportunities.Royal Society open science · 2023
   Review
4. Individual level analysis of digital proximity tracing for COVID-19 in Belgium highlights major bottlenecks.Nature communications · 2023
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as