Daily testing for contacts of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection and attendance and SARS-CoV-2 transmission in English secondary schools and colleges: an open-label, cluster-randomised trial

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.23.21260992: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: A representative of the institution provided consent electronically.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationRandomisation: Schools were randomly assigned 1:1 to either a policy of offering contacts daily testing over 7 days to allow continued school attendance (intervention arm) or to follow usual policy of isolation of contacts for 10 days (control arm).
    BlindingDuring the trial, the trial management team were blinded to the combined data.
    Power AnalysisBased on these assumptions we estimated that 58 participating schools in each arm provides 80% power (two-sided alpha=0.05) to detect a difference in attendance between the study arms.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    SARS-CoV-2 PCR was performed using the Thermo Fisher TaqPath COVID-19 kit.
    Thermo Fisher TaqPath
    suggested: None

    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:
    Additionally, at some stages, schools paused the intervention either because of capacity limitation or because public health officials were concerned about the spread of the Delta lineage or rising transmission in the community. No local public health teams reported concern that transmission was observed to increase because of this study. Previous estimates for the performance of antigen LFDs compared to PCR testing have varied markedly.[6, 22] Here we estimate the overall sensitivity of school-based LFD testing in largely asymptomatic individuals as 53%, which falls within the range of previously reported rates. It is worth noting the findings on transmission in this study are in the context of this level of performance. Specificity was 99.93%. As LFD performance varies by viral load[23] this overall performance is subject to change as the population viral load distribution changes. Consistent with previous reports[6] we find that higher viral loads, i.e. lower PCR cycle threshold values, are associated with increased sensitivity, and therefore LFDs are more likely to detect those who are most infectious.[16] The study has several limitations. Schools and colleges, despite provision of dedicated resources, were not always able to participate due to competing pressures, and it is also likely as a result that data capture was imperfect, e.g. it is possible that not all PCR-positive cases were reported to schools, and not all contacts may have been documented for all index case...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    ISRCTN18100261NANA


    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.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    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.