ArticleBMJ public health2026
Feasibility of molecular-based testing strategies for SARS-CoV-2-screening in workplaces: a systematic review and reporting checklist.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the need for effective workplace screening methods, particularly where remote work is not feasible. While lateral flow tests were common, molecular-based testing methods like PCR offer higher sensitivity and specificity. This review examines the feasibility, methods, barriers and facilitators of implementing molecular testing strategies in workplace settings. Methods: We conducted a systematic search in the databases PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and medRxiv for publications from 1 January 2020 onwards. The search was conducted twice (last in January 2025) to update results. Studies focused on non-healthcare workplaces, excluding schools, universities and care settings. Quality was assessed using standard reporting guidelines, and data were synthesised narratively due to heterogeneous study designs. Results: From 1777 records, 51 studies met inclusion criteria, primarily from industrial, laboratory and office settings across 21 countries, mostly in the Global North. Implementation of molecular-based testing was effective in reducing COVID-19 incidence in workplace settings when combined with quick turnaround times and frequent testing. Many employees felt it was the employer's responsibility to provide safety measures like testing. Challenges for implementation included logistical issues (sample collection, turnaround and ensuring employee participation). Some studies reported higher participation with saliva-based testing compared with nasopharyngeal swabs. While voluntary PCR testing does not increase on-site work when working from home is possible, regular PCR testing decreases durations of absence due to quarantine or isolation. Although higher sensitivity of tests can improve risk reduction in various scenarios, quick turnaround times of test results appear to be at least as or more important than test sensitivity. Conclusions: Molecular-based testing strategies in workplaces are feasible and can contribute to pandemic disease control. However, success depends on consideration of ethical, logistical and financial factors. Core parameters are testing frequency, test sensitivity and turnaround. This review suggests a checklist for reporting on workplace testing strategies in future epidemic or pandemic situations. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023391600.
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.