Impact of routine asymptomatic screening on COVID-19 incidence in a highly vaccinated university population
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background
With the return of in-person classes, an understanding of COVID-19 transmission in vaccinated university campuses is essential. Given the context of high anticipated vaccination rates and other measures, there are outstanding questions of the potential impact of campus-based asymptomatic screening.
Methods
We estimated the expected number of cases and hospitalizations in one semester using rates derived for British Columbia (BC), Canada up to September 15 th , 2021 and age-standardizing to a University population. To estimate the expected number of secondary cases averted due to routine tests of unvaccinated individuals in a BC post-secondary institution, we used a probabilistic model based on the incidence, vaccination effectiveness, vaccination coverage and R 0 . We examined multiple scenarios of vaccine coverage, screening frequency, and pre-vaccination R 0 .
Results
For one 12 week semester, the expected number of cases is 67 per 50,000 for 80% vaccination coverage and 37 per 50,000 for 95% vaccination coverage. Screening of the unvaccinated population averts an expected 6-16 cases per 50,000 at 80% decreasing to 1-2 averted cases per 50,000 at 95% vaccination coverage for weekly to daily screening. Further scenarios can be explored using a web-based application.
Interpretation
Routine screening of unvaccinated individuals may be of limited benefit if vaccination coverage is 80% or greater within a university setting.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.18.21265057: (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
No key resources detected.
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: 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…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.18.21265057: (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
No key resources detected.
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: 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.
- 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.
-
