Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37808825›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024

Modeling the Transmission Mitigation Impact of Testing for Infectious Diseases.

Casey Middleton, Daniel B Larremore

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Casey MiddletonDepartment of Computer Science, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.
Daniel B LarremoreDepartment of Computer Science, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA.

Funding

Casual, Statistical and Mathematical Modeling with Serologic DataU01CA261277 · NCI · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI HANAGE, WILLIAM, LIPSITCH, MARC · 2020 to 2023
$2.8M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA261277
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A fundamental question of any program focused on the testing and timely diagnosis of a communicable disease is its effectiveness in reducing transmission. Here, we introduce testing effectiveness (TE)-the fraction by which testing and post-diagnosis isolation reduce transmission at the population scale-and a model that incorporates test specifications and usage, within-host pathogen dynamics, and human behaviors to estimate TE. Using TE to guide recommendations, we show that today's rapid diagnostics should be used immediately upon symptom onset to control influenza A and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), but delayed by up to 2d to control omicron-era SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, while rapid tests are superior to RT-qPCR for control of founder-strain SARS-CoV-2, omicron-era changes in viral kinetics and rapid test sensitivity cause a reversal, with higher TE for RT-qPCR despite longer turnaround times. Finally, we illustrate the model's flexibility by quantifying tradeoffs in the use of post-diagnosis testing to shorten isolation times.

Identifiers

PMID37808825
PMCPMC10557819

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.