ArticleCommunications medicine2025
A modeling study to define guidelines for antigen screening in schools and workplaces to mitigate COVID-19 outbreaks.
Article in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying the optimal rapid antigen test for screening and determining the end of isolation: A modeling study.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- VIBES: A multiscale modeling approach integrating within-host and between-hosts dynamics in epidemics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Selective Wettability-Driven Evaporation-Enhanced Redox Cycling for Robust and Ultrasensitive Detection of Viral Particles.Small methods · 2026Article
- Age- and vaccination status-dependent isolation guidelines based on simulation of SARS-CoV-2 Delta cases in Singapore.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- A modeling study to define guidelines for antigen screening in schools and workplaces to mitigate COVID-19 outbreaks.Communications medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn-person interaction offers invaluable benefits to people. To guarantee safe in-person activities during a COVID-19 outbreak, effective identification of infectious individuals is essential. In this study, we aim to analyze the impact of screening with antigen tests in schools and workplaces on identifying COVID-19 infections.
methodsWe assess the effectiveness of various screening test strategies with antigen tests in schools and workplaces through quantitative simulations. The primary outcome of our analyses is the proportion of infected individuals identified. The transmission process at the population level is modeled using a deterministic compartmental model. Infected individuals are identified through screening tests or symptom development. The time-varying sensitivity of antigen tests and infectiousness is determined by a viral dynamics model. Screening test strategies are characterized by the screening schedule, sensitivity of antigen tests, screening duration, timing of screening initiation, and available tests per person.
resultsHere, we show that early and frequent screening is the key to maximizing the effectiveness of the screening program. For example, 44.5% (95% CI: 40.8-47.5) of infected individuals are identified by daily testing, whereas it is only 33.7% (95% CI: 30.5-37.3) when testing is performed at the end of the program duration. If high sensitivity antigen tests (Detection limit:
conclusionsHigh sensitivity antigen tests, high frequency screening tests, and immediate initiation of screening tests are important to safely restart educational and economic activities in-person. Our computational framework is useful for assessing screening programs by incorporating situation-specific factors.
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.