Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39528957›Full record

Trial reportBMC infectious diseases2024

Can self-testing be enhanced to hasten safe return of healthcare workers in pandemics? Random order, open label trial using two manufacturers' SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow devices concurrently and nested viral culture study.

Xingna Zhang, Christopher P Cheyne, Christopher Jones, Michael Humann, Gary Leeming, Claire Smith, David M Hughes, Girvan Burnside, Susanna Dodd, Rebekah Penrice-Randal and 8 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

18 authors.

Xingna Zhang *Department of Public Health, Policy & Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Christopher P Cheyne *Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Christopher JonesDepartment of Clinical Infection, Microbiology & Immunology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Michael HumannCentre for Educational Development & Support, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Gary LeemingCivic Health Innovation Labs (CHIL), University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Claire SmithCivic Health Innovation Labs (CHIL), University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
David M HughesDepartment of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Girvan BurnsideDepartment of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Susanna DoddDepartment of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Rebekah Penrice-RandalDepartment of Infection Biology & Microbiomes, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Xiaofeng DongDepartment of Infection Biology & Microbiomes, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Malcolm G SempleDepartment of Clinical Infection, Microbiology & Immunology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Tim NealLiverpool University Hospitals Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Sarah TunkelUK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Tom FowlerUK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Lance TurtleDepartment of Clinical Infection, Microbiology & Immunology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Marta García-FiñanaDepartment of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Iain E BuchanDepartment of Public Health, Policy & Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. buchan@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3392-1650

Funding

Economic and Social Research Council ES/L011840/1National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR200907National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR200910UK Health Security Agency SMART Release & ReturnU.S. Food and Drug Administration 75F40120C00085
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCovid-19 healthcare worker testing, isolation and quarantine policies had to balance risks to patients from the virus and from staff absence. The emergence of the Omicron variant led to dangerous levels of key-worker absence globally. We evaluated whether using two manufacturers' lateral flow tests (LFTs) concurrently improved SARS-CoV-2 Omicron detection significantly and was acceptable to hospital staff. In a nested study, to understand risks of return to work after a 5-day isolation/quarantine period, we examined virus culture 5-7 days after positive test or significant exposure.

methodsFully-vaccinated Liverpool (UK) University Hospitals staff participated (February-May 2022) in a random-order, open-label trial testing whether dual LFTs improved SARS-CoV-2 detection, and whether dual swabbing was acceptable to users. Participants used nose-throat swab Innova and nose-only swab Orient Gene LFTs in daily randomised order for 10 days. A user-experience questionnaire was administered on exit. Selected participants gave swabs for viral culture on days 5-7 after symptom onset or first positive test. Cultures were considered positive if cytopathic effect was apparent or SARS-CoV-2 N gene sub-genomic RNA was detected.

resultsTwo hundred and twenty-six individuals reported 1466 pairs of LFT results. Tests disagreed in 127 cases (8.7%). Orient Gene was more likely (78 cf. 49; OR: 2.1, 1.1-4.1; P = 0.03) to be positive. If Innova was swabbed second, it was less likely to agree with a positive Orient Gene result (OR: 2.7, 1.3-5.2; P = 0.005); swabbing first with Innova made no significant difference (OR: 1.1, 0.5-2.3; P = 0.85). Orient Gene positive Innova negative result-pairs became more frequent over time (OR: 1.2, 1.1-1.3; P < 0.001). Of individuals completing the exit questionnaire, 90.7% reported dual swabbing was easy, 57.1% said it was no barrier to their daily routine and 65.6% preferred dual testing. Respondents had more confidence in dual versus single test results. Viral cultures from days 5-7 were positive for 6/31 (19.4%, 7.5%-37.5%) and indeterminate for 11/31 (35.5%, 19.2%-54.6%) LFT-positive participants, indicating they were likely still infectious.

conclusionsDual brand testing increased LFT detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen by a small but meaningful margin and was acceptable to hospital workers. Viral cultures demonstrated that policies recommending safe return to work ~ 5 days after Omicron infection/exposure were flawed. Key-workers should be prepared for dynamic self-testing protocols in future pandemics.

trial registrationhttps://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN47058442 (26 January 2022).

Indexed as

COVID-19Health PersonnelSARS-CoV-2AdultCOVID-19 TestingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReturn to WorkSelf-TestingVirus CultivationCovid-19Healthcare workerLateral flow testSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID39528957
PMCPMC11555827

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.