ArticleBMJ public health2025
Evaluating strategies for global respiratory pandemic control at ports: a modelling study.
Article in BMJ public health, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Heavy reliance on container shipping during the COVID-19 pandemic with lockdown implementation and air travel bans placed substantial pressure on shipping crews and ports. Long waiting times at ports, substantial economic losses and massive supply chain disruption of essential and medical goods were observed. To minimise this for future pandemic preparedness, we explore the use of quarantining and testing of crews preboarding instead of quarantining at port calls or during voyages. Methods: Using a microsimulation model of 10 000 vessels and 300 000 crew, we examine the effectiveness of nine predeparture control strategies in reducing COVID-19 outbreak sizes, from no control to the use of 7-day and 14-day quarantining, and addition of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or antigen rapid test (ART) testing. To assess different infection parameters, we explored three variants (Alpha, Delta and Omicron), four prevalences (0.1%, 0.5%, 1% and 2%) and three quarantine compliances (50%, 90% and 100%). Results: Across the prevalences with no intervention, our modelled simulations estimate that approximately 3%, 15%, 28% and 47% of crews are infected, totalling around 9400, 44 900, 82 600 and 141 300 infections. At 2% prevalence, averaged across variants and compliances, when 7-day predeparture quarantining (7DQ) is introduced, 23 900 (range: 21 500-25 200) estimated cases are averted, rising up to 40 900 (40 200-41 600) for 14DQ. With additional predeparture PCR testing, this increases further to 102 100 (100 100-104 500) and 106 800 (106 100-108 100) respectively. Should ART testing be used instead, 92 600 (92 200-93 200) and 100 000 (98 900-101 100) estimated cases are averted. The use of predeparture PCR testing and PCR testing 1 week before departure has the greatest reduction at 108 200 (106 400-110 600) and 111 600 (110 500-113 000). Conclusion: In our simulation model, we show that preboarding control measures can be effective in limiting outbreaks, reducing the number of active cases on marine vessels without access to adequate medical care while simultaneously reducing port congestion and facilitating for the greater global transport of essential goods.
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.