Effective contact tracing for COVID-19: A systematic review

  1. Carl-Etienne Juneau
  2. Anne-Sara Briand
  3. Pablo Collazzo
  4. Uwe Siebert
  5. Tomas Pueyo

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.gloepi.2023.100103
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.23.20160234: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Search strategy: MEDLINE (1946 - 2020 July 8), Embase (1974 - 2020 July 10), Global Health (1973 - 2020 Week 26), and All EBM Reviews (2005 - 2020 July 10) were searched using the terms “COVID-19” OR “coronavirus disease 2019” OR “SARS-CoV-2” OR “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2” OR “2019-NCoV” OR “2019 novel coronavirus” AND “contact tracing” OR“contact-tracing” OR “tracing contact*” OR “contact follow-up” OR “case detection*” OR “contact investigation*” OR “epidemic investigation*” with no language or date restrictions.
    MEDLINE
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    To find additional articles, we also reviewed reference lists, used the “related articles” and “cited by” functions in Google Scholar and PubMed, searched our own files, and consulted with colleagues.
    Google Scholar
    suggested: (Google Scholar, RRID:SCR_008878)
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Tracing contacts manually over the telephone has a number of limitations. First, it is likely that not all contacts will be traced. Cases may not disclose, remember, or have contact information for all contacts. For example, a pilot programme in Sheffield, UK, found that two thirds of people contacted through tracing did not fully cooperate (Mahase, 2020). Second, during a peak of COVID-19, thousands of new contacts may need to be traced daily. This poses substantial operational challenges. Large contact tracing efforts with new staff are costly, and may not be able to maintain the level of effectiveness of smaller programmes with experienced staff. For example, UK’s test and trace programme cost ten billion pounds and may not have been effective (Iacobucci, 2020). Mobile phone apps and other technologies can circumvent these shortcomings, but raise a number of ethical issues (Bradford et al. 2020; Austin et al. 2020) and pose technological challenges (Ivers and Weitzner, 2020). Moreover, early evidence suggests that contact tracing apps, despite wide encouragement, have limited adoption (Sim and Lim, 2020; Johnson, 2020). Thus, they may only contribute to slowing (but not stopping) spread of COVID-19. Other key steps of the contact tracing process are isolations and quarantines. Ineffective isolations and quarantines may compromise otherwise flawless tracing efforts. Four of the five modelling studies we have reviewed assumed perfect prevention of transmission at these steps...

    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.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.07.23.20160234v2 on medRxiv
  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.07.23.20160234v1 on medRxiv