ArticleBMJ open2024
Evaluation of a novel university-based testing platform to increase access to SARS-CoV-2 testing during the COVID-19 pandemic in a cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to evaluate the feasibility and utility of an unsupervised testing mechanism, in which participants pick up a swab kit, self-test (unsupervised) and return the kit to an on-campus drop box, as compared with supervised self-testing at staffed locations.
designUniversity SARS-CoV-2 testing cohort.
settingHusky Coronavirus Testing provided voluntary SARS-CoV-2 testing at a university in Seattle, USA. OUTCOME MEASURES: We computed descriptive statistics to describe the characteristics of the study sample. Adjusted logistic regression implemented via generalised estimating equations was used to estimate the odds of a self-swab being conducted through unsupervised versus supervised testing mechanisms by participant characteristics, including year of study enrolment, pre-Omicron versus post-Omicron time period, age, sex, race, ethnicity, affiliation and symptom status.
resultsFrom September 2021 to July 2022, we received 92 499 supervised and 26 800 unsupervised self-swabs. Among swabs received by the laboratory, the overall error rate for supervised versus unsupervised swabs was 0.3% vs 4%, although this declined to 2% for unsupervised swabs by the spring of the academic year. Results were returned for 92 407 supervised (5% positive) and 25 836 unsupervised (4%) swabs from 26 359 participants. The majority were students (79%), 61% were female and most identified as white (49%) or Asian (34%). The use of unsupervised testing increased during the Omicron wave when testing demand was high and stayed constant in spring 2022 even when testing demand fell. We estimated the odds of using unsupervised versus supervised testing to be significantly greater among those <25 years of age (p<0.001), for Hispanic versus non-Hispanic individuals (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.3, p=0.01) and lower among individuals symptomatic versus asymptomatic or presymptomatic (0.9, 95% CI 0.8 to 0.9, p<0.001).
conclusionsUnsupervised swab collection permitted increased testing when demand was high, allowed for access to a broader proportion of the university community and was not associated with a substantial increase in testing errors.
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.