ArticleBMJ public health2026
Informing optimal testing and isolation strategies across different stages of the diagnostic development pipeline using mathematical models: SARS-CoV-2 in the UK as a case study.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Mass testing strategies recognise the importance of rapidly identifying individuals infected with potentially asymptomatic pathogens to mitigate outbreaks. A pressing question is how to design testing strategies that navigate the delicate balance between reducing morbidity and minimising societal disruption and absenteeism among key workers while balancing associated logistical and financial considerations. Methods: We use an individual-based model with explicit viral dynamics to explore the inherent trade-offs in testing regimen design and identify optimal regimens for different stages of a pandemic. Applying this framework to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the UK, we evaluate the impact of testing and isolation protocols on two key objectives: protecting the vulnerable and reducing transmission. Each testing regimen is evaluated according to three outcomes: reduction in infectivity, testing efficiency and isolation efficiency. Results: Our analysis shows that these outcomes are on orthogonal optimisation axes, indicating a sharp trade-off between strategic goals. This implies that transmission reduction strategies are inherently inefficient and that regimens with high testing efficiency will always have suboptimal isolation efficiency. By focusing on testing regimens to protect vulnerable groups, we map the predicted outcomes across different stages of the diagnostic development pipeline. We also examine how adherence to testing and isolation guidelines may influence the selection of regimens aimed at reducing overall transmission. Conclusions: Based on these findings, we offer a framework to streamline the selection process for robust testing strategies spanning the duration of a pandemic, ensuring consistently high levels of adherence and thus impact.
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.