The methodologies to assess the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions during COVID-19: a systematic review
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as school closures and stay-at-home orders, have been implemented around the world to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Their effectiveness in improving health-related outcomes has been the subject of numerous empirical studies. However, these studies show fairly large variation among methodologies in use, reflecting the absence of an established methodological framework. On the one hand, variation in methodologies may be desirable to assess the robustness of results; on the other hand, a lack of common standards can impede comparability among studies. To establish a comprehensive overview over the methodologies in use, we conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions between January 1, 2020 and January 12, 2021 (n = 248). We identified substantial variation in methodologies with respect to study setting, outcome, intervention, methodological approach, and effectiveness assessment. On this basis, we point to shortcomings of existing studies and make recommendations for the design of future studies.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.14.22273858: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources We searched the databases Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Embasesuggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)PubMedsuggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)These databases include, among others, MEDLINE, Biological Abstracts, CAB Abstracts, and Global Health. MEDLINEsuggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial …
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.14.22273858: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources We searched the databases Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Embasesuggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)PubMedsuggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)These databases include, among others, MEDLINE, Biological Abstracts, CAB Abstracts, and Global Health. MEDLINEsuggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No funding statement was detected.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-