Trial reportJournal of public health management and practice : JPHMP
Assessing COVID-19 Testing Strategies in K-12 Schools in Underserved Populations.
Trial report in Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP. 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextThe COVID-19 pandemic presented an unprecedented challenge for operations of schools in the US. In addition to masking and distancing, weekly testing for SARS-CoV-2 was recommended for students and staff during high SARS-CoV-2 transmission levels to provide an additional mitigation strategy to limit transmission.
objectiveTo assess testing strategies (weekly screening vs. symptomatic only) on SARS-CoV-2 infection rates in public middle and high schools predominantly attended by underrepresented minorities.
designDuring the 2021-2022 school year, a cluster randomized trial was conducted among 16 middle and high schools from 5 public school districts. These schools were randomized into one of 2 intervention groups: Weekly screening testing + symptomatic testing (S + S) or symptomatic testing only.
settingPublic schools in St. Louis (Missouri).
participantsStudents, staff, and family members of 16 middle and high schools.
interventionWeekly screening + symptomatic testing or symptomatic only testing.
main outcome measuresAny positive test across all weeks [yes/no], number of tests, number of positive tests, and positivity test rate for each participant.
resultsOne thousand three hundred ninety individuals participated in this study. From the S + S schools, 894 (64.3%) individuals participated: 200 (15%) students, 353 (43%) staff, and 290 (37.5%) household members. Among the 496 (35.7%) participants from the symptomatic only schools, 183 (13%) students, 203 (47%) staff, and 83 (40%) household members participated. A total of 183 participants tested positive during the study period. When comparing school-based testing strategies, the positivity rates were not different between the 2 groups ( P = .25).
conclusionsThis study did not show a benefit of weekly screening testing. Underlying disease risk or effectiveness of testing is considered however, notably the finding may be attributed to the inherent differences of identifying positive cases in each testing strategies. Finally, the participation rate in the study at the schools was low, which limits this finding.
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.