ArticleBMJ open2024
Impact and cost-effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 self-testing strategies in schools: a multicountry modelling analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic Analyses of COVID-19 Interventions: A Narrative Review of Global Evidence.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The role of economic evaluation in modelling public health and social measures for pandemic policy: a systematic review.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024Article
- 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
15 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the most epidemiologically effective and cost-effective school-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) self-testing strategies among teachers and students.
designMathematical modelling and economic evaluation. SETTING AND
participantsSimulated school and community populations were parameterised to Brazil, Georgia and Zambia, with SARS-CoV-2 self-testing strategies targeted to teachers and students in primary and secondary schools under varying epidemic conditions.
interventionsSARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT self-testing strategies for only teachers or teachers and students-only symptomatically or symptomatically and asymptomatically at 5%, 10%, 40% or 100% of schools at varying frequencies. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were assessed in terms of total infections and symptomatic days among teachers and students, as well as total infections and deaths within the community under the intervention compared with baseline. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for infections prevented among teachers and students.
resultsWith respect to both the reduction in infections and total cost, symptomatic testing of all teachers and students appears to be the most cost-effective strategy. Symptomatic testing can prevent up to 69·3%, 64·5% and 75·5% of school infections in Brazil, Georgia and Zambia, respectively, depending on the epidemic conditions, with additional reductions in community infections. ICERs for symptomatic testing range from US$2 to US$19 per additional school infection averted as compared with symptomatic testing of teachers alone.
conclusionsSymptomatic testing of teachers and students has the potential to cost-effectively reduce a substantial number of school and community infections.
Indexed as
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.