Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37611631›Full record

SynthesisPhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2023

Non-pharmaceutical interventions for COVID-19: a systematic review on environmental control measures.

Anagha Madhusudanan, Christopher Iddon, Muge Cevik, James H Naismith, Shaun Fitzgerald

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Non-pharmaceutical interventions for COVID-19: a systematic review on environmental control measures.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. WHO'Frontiers in public health · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Executive Summary to the Royal Society report "COVID-19: examining the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions".Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Anagha MadhusudananIsaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences, CB3 0EH, Cambridge, UK.
Christopher IddonDepartment of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, University College London, WC1E 6BT, London, UK.
Muge CevikDepartment of Infection and Global Health, School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, KY16 9TF, St Andrews, UK.
James H NaismithRoslind Franklin Institute, Harwell Campus, Didcot OX11 0QX, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6744-5061
Shaun FitzgeraldDepartment of Engineering, University of Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2178-496X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this review was to identify the effectiveness of environmental control (EC) non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through conducting a systematic review. EC NPIs considered in this review are room ventilation, air filtration/cleaning, room occupancy, surface disinfection, barrier devices, [Formula: see text] monitoring and one-way-systems. Systematic searches of databases from Web of Science, Medline, EMBASE, preprint servers MedRxiv and BioRxiv were conducted in order to identify studies reported between 1 January 2020 and 1 December 2022. All articles reporting on the effectiveness of ventilation, air filtration/cleaning, room occupancy, surface disinfection, barrier devices, [Formula: see text] monitoring and one-way systems in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 were retrieved and screened. In total, 13 971 articles were identified for screening. The initial title and abstract screening identified 1328 articles for full text review. Overall, 19 references provided evidence for the effectiveness of NPIs: 12 reported on ventilation, 4 on air cleaning devices, 5 on surface disinfection, 6 on room occupancy and 1 on screens/barriers. No studies were found that considered the effectiveness of [Formula: see text] monitoring or the implementation of one-way systems. Many of these studies were assessed to have critical risk of bias in at least one domain, largely due to confounding factors that could have affected the measured outcomes. As a result, there is low confidence in the findings. Evidence suggests that EC NPIs of ventilation, air cleaning devices and reduction in room-occupancy may have a role in reducing transmission in certain settings. However, the evidence was usually of low or very low quality and certainty, and hence the level of confidence ascribed to this conclusion is low. Based on the evidence found, it was not possible to draw any specific conclusions regarding the effectiveness of surface disinfection and the use of barrier devices. From these results, we further conclude that community agreed standards for well-designed epidemiological studies with low risk of bias are needed. Implementation of such standards would enable more confident assessment in the future of the effectiveness of EC NPIs in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens in real-world settings. This article is part of the theme issue 'The effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: the evidence'.

Indexed as

COVID-19Databases, FactualHumansPandemicsRespirationSARS-CoV-2air cleaningCOVID-19disinfectionoccupancyventilation

Identifiers

PMID37611631
PMCPMC10446906

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.