Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41974787›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Site-specific wastewater-based surveillance in early detection of COVID-19 new cases and prediction of mass testing outcomes in long-term care facilities.

Jiabi Wen, Ken K Peng, Bonita E Lee, Rhonda J Rosychuk, Tiejun Gao, Judy Y Qiu, Michael Y Li, Eleanor Risling, Lorie A Little, Christopher Sikora and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Jiabi WenSchool of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1C9, Canada.
Ken K PengDepartment of Statistics and Actuarial Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.
Bonita E LeeLi Ka Shing Institute of Virology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Rhonda J RosychukDepartment of Statistics and Actuarial Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.
Tiejun GaoDepartment of Laboratory Medicine & Pathology, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Judy Y QiuDepartment of Laboratory Medicine & Pathology, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Michael Y LiDepartment of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Eleanor RislingEdmonton Zone, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Lorie A LittleEdmonton Zone, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Christopher SikoraSchool of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1C9, Canada.
Xiaoli Lilly PangLi Ka Shing Institute of Virology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Arto OhinmaaSchool of Public Health, University of Alberta, 3-267 Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405 87 Ave NW, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1C9, Canada. aohinmaa@ualberta.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) were disproportionately impacted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Site-specific wastewater-based surveillance (WBS) offers a non-invasive alternative to traditional mass testing by capturing collective viral loads in wastewater. This study assessed the effectiveness of WBS in detecting new COVID-19 cases in nine Edmonton LTCFs from January 2021 to May 2023. We used constrained distributed lag models to identify critical windows when wastewater viral loads were significantly associated with new cases. Using this critical window, we evaluated the predictive accuracy of wastewater samples for mass testing outcomes. Fisher’s exact test and Mann-Whitney U test compared WBS accuracy for predicting resident vs. staff cases and examined whether factors like sample type, quantity, outbreak duration, or collection timing influenced accuracy. Among 2,515 wastewater samples, 909 were positive, alongside 825 COVID-19 cases identified from 18,226 clinical specimens. Before the clinical testing scale-down in 2022, eight of nine facilities had critical windows within three days. Wastewater collected three days in advance predicted 85% of negative and 60% of positive mass testing outcomes. WBS more accurately predicted resident cases than staff cases (74% vs. 33%, p=0.02). Other factors did not significantly affect prediction accuracy. Findings support using site-specific WBS to enable timely outbreak responses and better testing allocation among vulnerable populations.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 TestingWastewaterHumansLong-Term CareSARS-CoV-2Viral LoadWastewater-Based Epidemiological MonitoringWastewaterCOVID-19Distributed lag modelLead timeLong-term care facilitiesSite-specific wastewater-based surveillance

Identifiers

PMID41974787
PMCPMC13234349

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.