The impact of population-wide rapid antigen testing on SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in Slovakia
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Toward the end of 2020, Slovakia decided that it would test and then isolate positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) cases among its entire population of ∼5.5 million, and more than 50,000 positive cases were found during a rapid antigen testing campaign. Pavelka et al. analyzed the data and found that in 41 counties before and after the two rounds of testing, infection prevalence declined by about 80% (see the Perspective by García-Fiñana and Buchan). They also used the data to test a microsimulation model for one county. Quarantine of the whole household after a positive test was essential to achieving a large reduction in prevalence. Since Autumn 2020, transmission in Slovakia has rebounded, despite other interventions, because high-intensity testing was not sustainable.
Science , this issue p. 635 ; see also p. 571
Article activity feed
-
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.02.20240648: (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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:The most important limitation of this observational study is that we were unable to clearly distinguish the effect of the mass testing campaigns from that of the other non-pharmaceutical interventions introduced at a similar time, that have led to a reduction in contacts and mobility, albeit much less than during the Spring lockdown …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.02.20240648: (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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:The most important limitation of this observational study is that we were unable to clearly distinguish the effect of the mass testing campaigns from that of the other non-pharmaceutical interventions introduced at a similar time, that have led to a reduction in contacts and mobility, albeit much less than during the Spring lockdown (Figure S4). We are unaware of any other context in which a COVID-19 intervention has resulted in a 60% decline in infection prevalence within one week (or 80% in two weeks), particularly while primary schools and workplaces were mostly open. This would suggest that indeed a large share of the impact can be attributed to the mass testing campaigns. Similarly, our analysis using mathematical modelling suggests that even with what would be considered as one of the most impactful lockdowns observed so far, it would be impossible to replicate such rapid drop in test positivity without a substantial contribution from the mass testing campaign. The need to mobilise sufficient medical personnel to conduct the nasopharyngeal swabs could be a major obstacle to countries. Other rapid antigen tests kits are available that have achieved similarly high sensitivity in detecting likely infectious infections in lab conditions but are also licensed for use with nasal swabs (32, 33). Nasal swabs can be self-administered and therefore reduce demand on trained personnel and transmission risk in the process of sample collection or even may enable testing at home. Howe...
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.
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.02.20240648: (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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
The most important limitation of this observational study is that we were unable to clearly distinguish the effect of the mass testing campaigns from that of the other non-pharmaceutical interventions introduced at a similar time, that have led to a reduction in contacts and mobility, albeit much less than during the Spring lockdown …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.02.20240648: (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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
The most important limitation of this observational study is that we were unable to clearly distinguish the effect of the mass testing campaigns from that of the other non-pharmaceutical interventions introduced at a similar time, that have led to a reduction in contacts and mobility, albeit much less than during the Spring lockdown (Figure S4). We are unaware of any other context in which a COVID-19 intervention has resulted in a 60% decline in infection prevalence within one week (or 80% in two weeks), particularly while primary schools and workplaces were mostly open. This would suggest that indeed a large share of the impact can be attributed to the mass testing campaigns. Similarly, our analysis using mathematical modelling suggests that even with what would be considered as one of the most impactful lockdowns observed so far, it would be impossible to replicate such rapid drop in test positivity without a substantial contribution from the mass testing campaign. The need to mobilise sufficient medical personnel to conduct the nasopharyngeal swabs could be a major obstacle to countries. Other rapid antigen tests kits are available that have achieved similarly high sensitivity in detecting likely infectious infections in lab conditions but are also licensed for use with nasal swabs (32, 33). Nasal swabs can be self-administered and therefore reduce demand on trained personnel and transmission risk in the process of sample collection or even may enable testing at home...
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.
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.
-