Trial reportPloS one2024
Determining the optimal frequency of SARS-CoV-2 regular asymptomatic testing: A randomized feasibility trial in a home care setting.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validation of Rapid Point-of-Care Diagnostic Tests for Sexually Transmitted Infection Self-Testing Among Adolescent Girls and Young Women.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic presented a challenge for caregiving relatives in the home care setting. Caregivers can transmit SARS-CoV-2 to their relatives who are often at high risk for a severe course of COVID-19. Regular testing of asymptomatic caregivers for SARS-CoV-2 may reduce the risk of transmission. The optimal method and frequency of regular asymptomatic testing is unknown. We conducted a prospective, randomised trial to assess the feasibility, recruitment and acceptance of different testing frequencies. This serves to inform a future definitive randomised controlled trial.
methodsWe carried out a parallel three-armed feasibility trial, enrolling adult participants who provided home-based care for a relative at least twice a week. Participants were randomly assigned using sealed envelopes to either conduct saliva-based antigen self-testing at a frequency of once a week (group I), twice a week (group II), or every two days (group III). The participants completed questionnaires on a weekly basis. Main outcome measures were feasibility of recruitment, adherence to self-tests and distress caused by self-testing. We further collected data on the use of mouth-nose mask.
resultsFrom 25 March to 7 May 2021 we assessed 27 participants and randomised 26 in the study: 8 participants in group I, 8 in group II and 10 in group III. All participants completed the study. In group I 48/48 (100.0%; 95% CI 92.6% to 100.0%), in group II 93/96 (96.9%; 95% CI 91.2% to 98.9%) and in group III 209/210 (99.5%; 95% CI 97.4% to 99.9%) self-tests were carried out at home. Participants did not perceive regular self-testing as burdensome in any of the study arms. We did not observe any infection with SARS-CoV-2. During the study, mask adherence decreased from 35% to 19% in all groups.
conclusionConducting such a study was feasible. The participants tolerated regular self-testing well, which was reflected in a high level of test adherence. However, regular self-testing may have led to decreased protective behaviour. To demonstrate that regular asymptomatic testing reduces infection transmission, a future definitive trial should be performed at a time of a high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 and be implemented as a multicentre study.
trial registrationThe trial is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00026234.
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.