ArticlePLOS digital health2023
The epidemiological impact of digital and manual contact tracing on the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in the Netherlands: Empirical evidence.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Belgium's SARS-CoV-2 contact tracing effectively curbed transmission, yet challenges persist in terms of delays, scalability and population adherence.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Where Technology Leads, the Problems Follow. Technosolutionism and the Dutch Contact Tracing App.Philosophy & technology · 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
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Dutch government introduced the CoronaMelder smartphone application for digital contact tracing (DCT) to complement manual contact tracing (MCT) by Public Health Services (PHS) during the 2020-2022 SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. Modelling studies showed great potential but empirical evidence of DCT and MCT impact is scarce. We determined reasons for testing, and mean exposure-testing intervals by reason for testing, using routine data from PHS Amsterdam (1 December 2020 to 31 May 2021) and data from two SARS-CoV-2 rapid diagnostic test accuracy studies at other PHS sites in the Netherlands (14 December 2020 to 18 June 2021). Throughout the study periods, notification of DCT-identified contacts was via PHS contact-tracers, and self-testing was not yet widely available. The most commonly reported reason for testing was having symptoms. In asymptomatic individuals, it was having been warned by an index case. Only around 2% and 2-5% of all tests took place after DCT or MCT notification, respectively. About 20-36% of those who had received a DCT or MCT notification had symptoms at the time of test request. Test positivity after a DCT notification was significantly lower, and exposure-test intervals after a DCT or MCT notification were longer, than for the above-mentioned other reasons for testing. Our data suggest that the impact of DCT and MCT on the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in the Netherlands was limited. However, DCT impact might be enlarged if app use coverage is improved, contact-tracers are eliminated from the digital notification process to minimise delays, and DCT is combined with self-testing.
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.