Assessing the impact of lateral flow testing strategies on within-school SARS-CoV-2 transmission and absences: A modelling study
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Rapid testing strategies that replace the isolation of close contacts through the use of lateral flow device tests (LFTs) have been suggested as a way of controlling SARS-CoV-2 transmission within schools that maintain low levels of pupil absences. We developed an individual-based model of a secondary school formed of exclusive year group bubbles (five year groups, with 200 pupils per year) to assess the likely impact of strategies using LFTs in secondary schools over the course of a seven-week half-term on transmission, absences, and testing volume, compared to a policy of isolating year group bubbles upon a pupil returning a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. We also considered the sensitivity of results to levels of participation in rapid testing and underlying model assumptions. While repeated testing of year group bubbles following case detection is less effective at reducing infections than a policy of isolating year group bubbles, strategies involving twice weekly mass testing can reduce infections to lower levels than would occur under year group isolation. By combining regular testing with serial contact testing or isolation, infection levels can be reduced further still. At high levels of pupil participation in lateral flow testing, strategies replacing the isolation of year group bubbles with testing substantially reduce absences, but require a high volume of testing. Our results highlight the conflict between the goals of minimising within-school transmission, minimising absences and minimising testing burden. While rapid testing strategies can reduce school transmission and absences, they may lead to a large number of daily tests.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.11.21251587: (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
Antibodies Sentences Resources In line with recent observations from community surveillance surveys, we assumed that the population prevalence at the start of the simulation was 2%22 and that 20% of the population had been previously infected and as a result were immune from reinfection (based on an estimate from December 2020 that approximately 12% of the population in England would have tested positive for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 from a blood sample23, with an expectation the true proportion previously infected would be higher owing to waning of detectable antibodies24). antibodies24suggested: NoneSoftware and Algorithms Sentence… SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.11.21251587: (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
Antibodies Sentences Resources In line with recent observations from community surveillance surveys, we assumed that the population prevalence at the start of the simulation was 2%22 and that 20% of the population had been previously infected and as a result were immune from reinfection (based on an estimate from December 2020 that approximately 12% of the population in England would have tested positive for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 from a blood sample23, with an expectation the true proportion previously infected would be higher owing to waning of detectable antibodies24). antibodies24suggested: NoneSoftware and Algorithms Sentences Resources We performed the reopening strategy model simulations, sensitivity analysis and visualisation of results using Matlab 2019b. Matlabsuggested: (MATLAB, RRID:SCR_001622)Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code.
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.
-
