ArticleBMJ public health2025
Mass SARS-CoV-2 testing in US correctional facilities during the pandemic: a longitudinal analysis.
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
Introduction: Real-world evidence on the utility of SARS-CoV-2 mass screening in correctional facilities remains limited. The Connecticut Department of Correction (CTDOC) implemented an adaptive testing programme involving serial mass screening with reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR). Data from this programme offer a unique opportunity to evaluate mass screening throughout the pandemic. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal analysis of people tested as part of mass screening between November 2020 and May 2023 while housed in a CTDOC cell. We estimated the time to test result and the average number of exposures averted by isolating residents who tested positive. Averted exposures were calculated by comparing exposures in the 14 days following a positive versus negative test. Results: Among the 600 477 recorded tests, collected among 29 728 residents, 177 845 were collected during mass screening and included. Median time from test collection to result notification was 2 days (IQR: 1-3) for positives and 1 day (IQR: 1-2) for negatives. Among residents who tested positive during mass screening, the average number of susceptible cellmates declined from 1.23 on the test day to 0.16 by day 8; at the cell block level, susceptible contacts fell from 79.5 to 0.19 by day 9. These declines corresponded with an average of 0.65 (95% CI: 0.62 to 0.67) cell and up to 66.9 (95% CI: 64.7 to 69.1) cell block exposures adverted per day per positive case. However, between testing and result notification, residents who tested positive had an average of 1.19 (95% CI: 1.15 to 1.23) susceptible cellmates and 73.0 (95% CI: 71.4 to 74.6) susceptible cell block contacts. Conclusions: Mass screening in correctional facilities can reduce exposures to respiratory pathogens, such as SARS-CoV-2, through timely identification and isolation. However, test delays, limited isolation capacity and missed infections allow ongoing transmission even in well-resourced settings, suggesting that testing alone is unlikely to fully mitigate transmission in correctional facilities.
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.