Effective contact tracing for COVID-19: A systematic review

Carl-Etienne Juneau , Anne-Sara Briand , Pablo Collazzo , Uwe Siebert , Tomas Pueyo
{"title":"Effective contact tracing for COVID-19: A systematic review","authors":"Carl-Etienne Juneau ,&nbsp;Anne-Sara Briand ,&nbsp;Pablo Collazzo ,&nbsp;Uwe Siebert ,&nbsp;Tomas Pueyo","doi":"10.1016/j.gloepi.2023.100103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Contact tracing is commonly recommended to control outbreaks of COVID-19, but its effectiveness is unclear. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched four databases using a range of terms related to contact tracing effectiveness for COVID-19. We found 343 papers; 32 were included. All were observational or modelling studies. Observational studies (<em>n</em> = 14) provided consistent, very-low certainty evidence that contact tracing (alone or in combination with other interventions) was associated with better control of COVID-19 (e.g. in Hong Kong, only 1084 cases and four deaths were recorded in the first 4.5 months of the pandemic). Modelling studies (<em>n</em> = 18) provided consistent, high-certainty evidence that under assumptions of prompt and thorough tracing with effective quarantines, contact tracing could stop the spread of COVID-19 (e.g. by reducing the reproduction number from 2.2 to 0.57). A cautious interpretation indicates that to stop the spread of COVID-19, public health practitioners have 2–3 days from the time a new case develops symptoms to isolate the case and quarantine at least 80% of its contacts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36311,"journal":{"name":"Global Epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9997056/pdf/","citationCount":"30","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590113323000068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 30

Abstract

Contact tracing is commonly recommended to control outbreaks of COVID-19, but its effectiveness is unclear. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched four databases using a range of terms related to contact tracing effectiveness for COVID-19. We found 343 papers; 32 were included. All were observational or modelling studies. Observational studies (n = 14) provided consistent, very-low certainty evidence that contact tracing (alone or in combination with other interventions) was associated with better control of COVID-19 (e.g. in Hong Kong, only 1084 cases and four deaths were recorded in the first 4.5 months of the pandemic). Modelling studies (n = 18) provided consistent, high-certainty evidence that under assumptions of prompt and thorough tracing with effective quarantines, contact tracing could stop the spread of COVID-19 (e.g. by reducing the reproduction number from 2.2 to 0.57). A cautious interpretation indicates that to stop the spread of COVID-19, public health practitioners have 2–3 days from the time a new case develops symptoms to isolate the case and quarantine at least 80% of its contacts.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新冠肺炎的有效接触者追踪:系统综述
接触者追踪通常被建议用于控制新冠肺炎疫情,但其有效性尚不清楚。根据PRISMA指南,我们使用一系列与新冠肺炎接触者追踪有效性相关的术语搜索了四个数据库。我们发现343篇论文;包括32个。所有这些都是观察或建模研究。观察性研究(n=14)提供了一致的、非常低确定性的证据,证明接触者追踪(单独或与其他干预措施相结合)与更好地控制新冠肺炎有关(例如,在香港,在大流行的前4.5个月,仅记录了1084例病例和4例死亡)。建模研究(n=18)提供了一致的高级证据,表明在快速彻底追踪和有效隔离的假设下,接触者追踪可以阻止新冠肺炎的传播(例如,通过将繁殖数量从2.2减少到0.57)。谨慎的解释表明,为了阻止新冠肺炎的传播,公共卫生从业者从新病例出现症状起有2-3天的时间来隔离该病例,并隔离至少80%的接触者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Global Epidemiology
Global Epidemiology Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
39 days
期刊最新文献
A note on handling conditional missing values Tailored guidance to apply the Estimand framework to Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) studies Improving the timeliness of birth registration in Fiji through a financial incentive Predicting adolescent psychopathology from early life factors: A machine learning tutorial Challenging unverified assumptions in causal claims: Do gas stoves increase risk of pediatric asthma?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1