ArticleBMC public health2025
Real-world usage of mass rapid antigen testing for COVID-19 in long-term care facilities and support programmes: results from long-term surveillance in North-Eastern Germany.
Article in BMC 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFrom December 2020 to February 2023, the research project ZEPOCTS operated as a central surveillance centre for COVID-19 rapid antigen tests (RATs) in the German state Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (M-W). Since mid-December 2020, long-term care facilities (LTCF) as well as support programmes in M-W had been obliged by ordinance to report on-site RATs to this surveillance project. However, most studies have measured RATs in cross-sectional studies or short-term comparisons with smaller samples, and only a few studies have followed the long-term development of COVID-19 testing, even though the pandemic lasted more than two years. The aim of this article is to present the surveillance methods and provide an overview of the outcome development of the results of RATs in LTCF and support programmes as well as a comparison with the infection development of the pandemic.
methodsThe project was designed as a prospective longitudinal surveillance study. The analysis includes around 6,2 million RATs of 1,015 facilities for 120 weeks. For comparative analysis of the RATs' development in the LTCF and regional development of the pandemic, several inferential correlation tests and a nonparametric multiple changepoint detection analysis with pruned exact linear time (PELT) and changepoints over a range of penalties (CROPS) were performed.
resultsThe results indicate that the weekly positivity rates of RATs and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests correlated highly. The changepoint analysis revealed that changepoints of increase are primarily found earlier in the PCR distribution. Both the use of RATs by inpatient long-term care facilities and the distribution of the positivity rate of support programmes differed significantly from the other categories.
conclusionsThe study demonstrated a delayed increase in the RATs positivity rate in the participating facilities compared to PCR positivity rate of public health data. Still, it was observed that the positivity rate of RATs evidently follows the pandemic dynamics. We conclude that a frequent large-scale testing strategy was feasible but should consider reasonable adjustments to preserve existing resources. Further research is necessary to identify improvements for future applications.
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.