ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Modeling the effectiveness of RT-PCR, RT-LAMP, and antigen testing strategies for COVID-19 control.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the crucial role of testing in mitigating disease transmission. This study evaluates the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of various testing strategies, including daily screening, symptom-based testing, and contact-based testing, using RT-PCR, RT-LAMP, and antigen tests.
methodsWe employed stochastic modeling on a contact network to assess the impact of these strategies on outbreak control. Simulations were conducted to evaluate the probability of an outbreak, epidemic size, and testing costs for each strategy. Scenarios with varying levels of population immunity were also explored.
resultsDaily screening, particularly with RT-PCR and RT-LAMP, significantly reduced transmission risks but incurred higher costs. Symptom-based testing offered a more cost-effective alternative, albeit with lower efficacy in mitigating outbreaks. Antigen tests, despite their lower sensitivity, proved to be a cost-effective option for symptom-based testing. Turnaround time of symptom-based testing was a more critical factor than assay sensitivity in containing outbreaks. Combining symptom-based testing with contact tracing further reduced outbreak probability. In scenarios with pre-existing population immunity, testing all symptomatic individuals was the most effective and cost-efficient approach when compared to testing a lower proportion of symptomatic individuals.
conclusionsOur findings suggest testing strategies could be adapted based on the stage of the epidemic, population immunity, and available resources. Daily screening is most effective but costly, while symptom-based testing combined with contact tracing offers a more cost-effective approach. Antigen tests can be a viable alternative for symptom-based testing in resource-limited settings. Rapid case identification and isolation are crucial for optimal outbreak control. These findings provide valuable insights for designing targeted interventions to protect communities while managing limited resources during current and future infectious disease outbreaks.
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.