ArticleThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2025
Consecutive Evaluation of Systematic Community-Based COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Testing in Three Different Populations in Jamaica during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Article in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2025. 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.
- Operational Research to Support Rapid Evidence-Based Responses to Outbreaks: Learnings from COVID-19.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rise in COVID-19 cases in late 2021 posed a grave threat to the public health system and the economy of Jamaica. A key pillar of controlling COVID-19 includes rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals and their contacts. Hence, we evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of weekly deployment of antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) by conducting three 6-week studies within high-risk populations in Jamaica. We enrolled 1) 287 study participants (≥18 years) from low-income communities (Study A), 2) 262 healthcare workers (Study B), and 3) 88 students (14-17 years) (Study C). Conducting these independent studies was challenging. Willingness to participate was generally low with fear of phlebotomy (42%), discomfort associated with nasal swab (39%), and lack of parental consent (35%) being the most common reasons students gave (Study C) for lack of participation. Furthermore, only 57%, 66%, and 88% of participants concluded their final study visit in studies A to C, respectively. Participants' commitment and external factors, such as severe weather and outbreaks of violence affected follow-up. Overall, a total of six participants (<1%) tested COVID-19 Ag-RDT positive during all three studies, thus the number of infections detected were too low to draw any conclusions relating to the efficacy of the testing approach. Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in most study participants (78-94%), but vaccination rates differed significantly between communities. Understanding these differences in vaccination rates is important because, given the low participation and follow-up rate, mass vaccination may present a more suitable public health intervention than regular testing.
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.