Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38426578›Full record

ReviewJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2024

Non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce COVID-19 transmission in the UK: a rapid mapping review and interactive evidence gap map.

D Duval, B Evans, A Sanders, J Hill, A Simbo, T Kavoi, I Lyell, Z Simmons, M Qureshi, N Pearce-Smith and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

14 authors.

D DuvalResearch, Evidence and Knowledge Division, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), London E14 5EA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1042-2114
B EvansResearch, Evidence and Knowledge Division, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), London E14 5EA, UK.
A SandersResearch, Evidence and Knowledge Division, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), London E14 5EA, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7356-0525
J HillClinical and Public Health Response Division, UKHSA, London E14 5EA, UK.
A SimboEvaluation and Epidemiological Science Division, UKHSA, Colindale NW9 5EQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5426-5483
T KavoiCheshire and Merseyside Health Protection Team, UKHSA, Liverpool L3 1DS, UK.
I LyellGreater Manchester Health Protection Team, UKHSA, Manchester M1 3BN, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5923-2231
Z SimmonsResearch, Evidence and Knowledge Division, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), London E14 5EA, UK.ORCID 0009-0005-0422-0072
M QureshiClinical and Public Health Response Division, UKHSA, London E14 5EA, UK.
N Pearce-SmithResearch, Evidence and Knowledge Division, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), London E14 5EA, UK.
C R ArevaloResearch, Evidence and Knowledge Division, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), London E14 5EA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5463-0441
C R BeckEvaluation and Epidemiological Science Division, UKHSA, Salisbury SP4 0JG, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0967-5333
R BindraClinical and Public Health Response Division, UKHSA, London E14 5EA, UK.
I OliverDirector General Science and Research and Chief Scientific Officer, UKHSA, London E14 5EA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6106-1734

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were crucial in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, although uncertainties about their effectiveness remain. This work aimed to better understand the evidence generated during the pandemic on the effectiveness of NPIs implemented in the UK.

methodsWe conducted a rapid mapping review (search date: 1 March 2023) to identify primary studies reporting on the effectiveness of NPIs to reduce COVID-19 transmission. Included studies were displayed in an interactive evidence gap map.

resultsAfter removal of duplicates, 11 752 records were screened. Of these, 151 were included, including 100 modelling studies but only 2 randomized controlled trials and 10 longitudinal observational studies.Most studies reported on NPIs to identify and isolate those who are or may become infectious, and on NPIs to reduce the number of contacts. There was an evidence gap for hand and respiratory hygiene, ventilation and cleaning.

conclusionsOur findings show that despite the large number of studies published, there is still a lack of robust evaluations of the NPIs implemented in the UK. There is a need to build evaluation into the design and implementation of public health interventions and policies from the start of any future pandemic or other public health emergency.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2Communicable Disease ControlEvidence GapsHumansPandemicsUnited KingdomCOVID-19non-pharmaceutical interventions

Identifiers

PMID38426578
PMCPMC11141784

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.