SARS-CoV-2检测策略的有效性:范围审查

KM Saif-Ur-Rahman, Ani Movsisyan, Kavita Kothari, Thomas Conway, Marie Tierney, Caoimhe Madden, Petek Eylul Taneri, Jane A. O'Halloran, Nadra Nurdin, Lena Murphy, Deirdre Mulholland, Andrea C. Tricco, Declan Devane
{"title":"SARS-CoV-2检测策略的有效性:范围审查","authors":"KM Saif-Ur-Rahman,&nbsp;Ani Movsisyan,&nbsp;Kavita Kothari,&nbsp;Thomas Conway,&nbsp;Marie Tierney,&nbsp;Caoimhe Madden,&nbsp;Petek Eylul Taneri,&nbsp;Jane A. O'Halloran,&nbsp;Nadra Nurdin,&nbsp;Lena Murphy,&nbsp;Deirdre Mulholland,&nbsp;Andrea C. Tricco,&nbsp;Declan Devane","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Rapid identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections by testing potentially reduced coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) cases. Testing strategies varied across countries and during different stages of the pandemic. This scoping review aims to map the available evidence on the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies for suspected cases and asymptomatic populations to inform the development of World Health Organization recommendations for SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We followed the standard methods for scoping reviews. We searched Medline (OVID), EMBASE (Elsevier), and Europe PMC using a comprehensive search strategy. The search was conducted in January 2023 and covered the period from January 2020 to January 2023. Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts, and full texts. Data were extracted onto a pilot-tested form by a review author and cross-checked by another review author. We provided a descriptive report summarizing the extracted data around the outcomes and created an interactive map of the available evidence using the evidence for policy and practice mapper.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We identified 34,550 citations from the databases. After the screening, we included 17 studies from 11 countries for data extraction. The study designs were randomized controlled trials (<i>n</i> = 3), nonrandomized experimental studies (<i>n</i> = 3), cohort studies (<i>n</i> = 3), cross-sectional studies (<i>n</i> = 4), self-controlled case series (<i>n</i> = 1), and economic evaluations (<i>n</i> = 3).  Among the included studies, 14 used reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and 10 studies used antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test. The settings of the studies were healthcare facilities (<i>n</i> = 8), communities (<i>n</i> = 4), schools, and workplaces (<i>n</i> = 3). Included studies considered symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, or both, or asymptomatic contacts. Most of the studies (<i>n</i> = 14) reported the COVID-19 positivity rate as the primary outcome. Other reported outcomes are the number of COVID-19 cases (<i>n</i> = 11), number of hospitalizations and deaths (<i>n</i> = 3), and cost (<i>n</i> = 3).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>We identified evidence gaps in the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies, particularly in specific settings such as schools and long-term care facilities. This scoping review provides a foundation for further research, allowing researchers and stakeholders to focus on addressing the identified gaps.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12030","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies: A scoping review\",\"authors\":\"KM Saif-Ur-Rahman,&nbsp;Ani Movsisyan,&nbsp;Kavita Kothari,&nbsp;Thomas Conway,&nbsp;Marie Tierney,&nbsp;Caoimhe Madden,&nbsp;Petek Eylul Taneri,&nbsp;Jane A. O'Halloran,&nbsp;Nadra Nurdin,&nbsp;Lena Murphy,&nbsp;Deirdre Mulholland,&nbsp;Andrea C. Tricco,&nbsp;Declan Devane\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cesm.12030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Rapid identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections by testing potentially reduced coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) cases. Testing strategies varied across countries and during different stages of the pandemic. This scoping review aims to map the available evidence on the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies for suspected cases and asymptomatic populations to inform the development of World Health Organization recommendations for SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We followed the standard methods for scoping reviews. We searched Medline (OVID), EMBASE (Elsevier), and Europe PMC using a comprehensive search strategy. The search was conducted in January 2023 and covered the period from January 2020 to January 2023. Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts, and full texts. Data were extracted onto a pilot-tested form by a review author and cross-checked by another review author. We provided a descriptive report summarizing the extracted data around the outcomes and created an interactive map of the available evidence using the evidence for policy and practice mapper.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>We identified 34,550 citations from the databases. After the screening, we included 17 studies from 11 countries for data extraction. The study designs were randomized controlled trials (<i>n</i> = 3), nonrandomized experimental studies (<i>n</i> = 3), cohort studies (<i>n</i> = 3), cross-sectional studies (<i>n</i> = 4), self-controlled case series (<i>n</i> = 1), and economic evaluations (<i>n</i> = 3).  Among the included studies, 14 used reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and 10 studies used antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test. The settings of the studies were healthcare facilities (<i>n</i> = 8), communities (<i>n</i> = 4), schools, and workplaces (<i>n</i> = 3). Included studies considered symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, or both, or asymptomatic contacts. Most of the studies (<i>n</i> = 14) reported the COVID-19 positivity rate as the primary outcome. Other reported outcomes are the number of COVID-19 cases (<i>n</i> = 11), number of hospitalizations and deaths (<i>n</i> = 3), and cost (<i>n</i> = 3).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>We identified evidence gaps in the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies, particularly in specific settings such as schools and long-term care facilities. This scoping review provides a foundation for further research, allowing researchers and stakeholders to focus on addressing the identified gaps.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100286,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods\",\"volume\":\"1 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12030\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.12030\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.12030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通过检测可能减少的冠状病毒病-19 (COVID-19)病例,快速识别严重急性呼吸综合征-冠状病毒2 (SARS-CoV-2)感染。各国和大流行不同阶段的检测策略各不相同。本次范围审查的目的是绘制关于SARS-CoV-2检测策略对疑似病例和无症状人群有效性的现有证据,为世卫组织制定SARS-CoV-2检测策略建议提供信息。方法采用标准方法进行范围评价。我们使用综合搜索策略检索Medline (OVID)、EMBASE (Elsevier)和Europe PMC。该调查于2023年1月进行,涵盖时间为2020年1月至2023年1月。两位综述作者独立筛选了标题、摘要和全文。数据由一位综述作者提取到试点测试表格中,并由另一位综述作者进行交叉检查。我们提供了一份描述性报告,总结了围绕结果提取的数据,并使用政策和实践证据映射器创建了可用证据的交互式地图。结果我们从数据库中鉴定出34,550条引文。筛选后,我们纳入了来自11个国家的17项研究进行数据提取。研究设计为随机对照试验(n = 3)、非随机实验研究(n = 3)、队列研究(n = 3)、横断面研究(n = 4)、自我对照病例系列(n = 1)和经济评价(n = 3)。在纳入的研究中,14项研究采用逆转录聚合酶链反应,10项研究采用抗原检测快速诊断试验。研究的环境为医疗机构(n = 8)、社区(n = 4)、学校和工作场所(n = 3)。纳入的研究考虑了有症状和无症状的个体,或两者都有,或无症状接触者。大多数研究(n = 14)将COVID-19阳性率作为主要指标。报告的其他结局包括COVID-19病例数(n = 11)、住院和死亡人数(n = 3)以及费用(n = 3)。我们发现了SARS-CoV-2检测策略有效性方面的证据差距,特别是在学校和长期护理机构等特定环境中。这种范围审查为进一步的研究提供了基础,使研究人员和利益相关者能够集中精力解决已确定的差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies: A scoping review

Introduction

Rapid identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections by testing potentially reduced coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) cases. Testing strategies varied across countries and during different stages of the pandemic. This scoping review aims to map the available evidence on the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies for suspected cases and asymptomatic populations to inform the development of World Health Organization recommendations for SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies.

Methods

We followed the standard methods for scoping reviews. We searched Medline (OVID), EMBASE (Elsevier), and Europe PMC using a comprehensive search strategy. The search was conducted in January 2023 and covered the period from January 2020 to January 2023. Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts, and full texts. Data were extracted onto a pilot-tested form by a review author and cross-checked by another review author. We provided a descriptive report summarizing the extracted data around the outcomes and created an interactive map of the available evidence using the evidence for policy and practice mapper.

Results

We identified 34,550 citations from the databases. After the screening, we included 17 studies from 11 countries for data extraction. The study designs were randomized controlled trials (n = 3), nonrandomized experimental studies (n = 3), cohort studies (n = 3), cross-sectional studies (n = 4), self-controlled case series (n = 1), and economic evaluations (n = 3).  Among the included studies, 14 used reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and 10 studies used antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test. The settings of the studies were healthcare facilities (n = 8), communities (n = 4), schools, and workplaces (n = 3). Included studies considered symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, or both, or asymptomatic contacts. Most of the studies (n = 14) reported the COVID-19 positivity rate as the primary outcome. Other reported outcomes are the number of COVID-19 cases (n = 11), number of hospitalizations and deaths (n = 3), and cost (n = 3).

Conclusion

We identified evidence gaps in the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies, particularly in specific settings such as schools and long-term care facilities. This scoping review provides a foundation for further research, allowing researchers and stakeholders to focus on addressing the identified gaps.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Methodological and reporting quality of systematic and rapid reviews on human mpox and their utility during a public health emergency Issue Information “Interest-holders”: A new term to replace “stakeholders” in the context of health research and policy Empowering the future of evidence-based healthcare: The Cochrane Early Career Professionals Network Issue Information
×
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