Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37968444›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Impact on the German asymptomatic screening strategy based on actual user data from SARS-CoV-2 test centers.

Marcus Grohmann, Janina Grosch, Beate Conrady, Lena Schomakers, Anna Kristina Witte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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

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.

Marcus GrohmannHTK Hygiene Technologie Kompetenzzentrum GmbH, Buger Str. 80, 96049, Bamberg, Germany.
Janina GroschHTK Hygiene Technologie Kompetenzzentrum GmbH, Buger Str. 80, 96049, Bamberg, Germany.
Beate ConradyDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 1870, Frederiksberg, Denmark.
Lena SchomakersHTK Hygiene Technologie Kompetenzzentrum GmbH, Buger Str. 80, 96049, Bamberg, Germany.
Anna Kristina WitteHTK Hygiene Technologie Kompetenzzentrum GmbH, Buger Str. 80, 96049, Bamberg, Germany. anna.witte@hygiene-tk.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since March 2021, Germany has been providing cost-free severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen tests, and many day-to-day activities following the lockdown have required negative test results. Yet it remains unclear how tests have been used and whether there are patterns connected to mitigation measures. We analyzed over 50,000 anonymized records from eight test centers in a typical medium-sized city, with one of them remaining open continuously from March until December 2021. The centers exhibit distinct patterns of visitor types, with the majority tested only once in the investigated period. Individuals who underwent repeated testing tended to favor the same location. A preference for spontaneous testing grew in proportion to the availability of spare tests. Visitors aged 18 to 30 years were distinctly overrepresented compared to the local demographic. A negative binominal model showed that implemented mitigation measures had an impact on the number of tests conducted. Cost-free testing in private facilities was implemented into the German complementary screening strategy, aiming to achieve weekly population-wide testing. This study demonstrates these facilities were rarely used for regular testing but rather for meeting requirements of certified tests. The results should aid authorities in making future decisions regarding infection control.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2GermanyHumansInfection Control

Identifiers

PMID37968444
PMCPMC10652004

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.