A scoping review of the experience of implementing population testing for SARS-CoV-2

  1. C.R. Foster
  2. F. Campbell
  3. L. Blank
  4. A.J. Cantrell
  5. M. Black
  6. A.C.K. Lee

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.puhe.2021.06.012
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.11.21249571: (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

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Studies were included if they described the process of providing or accessing a population testing point for symptomatic and/or asymptomatic individuals for Covid-19, using an antigen or antibody test in any setting, using any testing modality.
    antigen
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    An information specialist (AC) searched the electronic databases Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library (Figure 1).
    Medline
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    Cochrane Library
    suggested: (Cochrane Library, RRID:SCR_013000)

    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:
    Many were simply an evaluation of a testing programme with a discussion of its advantages and limitations rather than robust research studies with control groups. The heterogeneous nature of the testing programmes described in the literature makes it difficult to compare between studies. No studies reported quantitative data on participant outcomes. There is a paucity of published literature on the implementation of mass testing for SARS-CoV-2. There were no studies on mass testing that fit the inclusion criteria of this review, although a few papers have described mass testing of residents in facilities such as care homes and prisons 32, 33. A recent review by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control highlights the need for further studies on the assessment and impact of mass testing 34. Indeed, some countries have rushed to adopt mass testing before the benefits, risks and costs of this approach is fully understood 35. It is therefore pertinent to draw on the international literature on population testing to inform decision making in order to ensure that testing is deployed in a safe and effective way as part of the overall COVID response 36. A distinction needs to be made between population testing and screening for Covid-19. As Covid-19 is a new disease, it is unsurprising that definitions for screening and testing in this context have not yet been standardised and often appear to be arbitrary. We found the term ‘screening’ is loosely used in different ways ...

    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 10.1101/2021.01.11.21249571v1 on medRxiv