MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4315797512 · doi:10.1101/2023.01.12.23284479

Comparison of different isolation periods for preventing the spread of COVID-19: a rapid systematic review and a modelling study

2023· review· en· W4315797512 sur OpenAlexafffund
Ya Gao, Yunli Zhao, Xi Zhang, Jinhui Tian, Gordon Guyatt, Qiukui Hao

Notice bibliographique

RevuemedRxiv · 2023
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Établissements canadiensMcMaster UniversityImpact
Organismes subventionnairesKwame Nkrumah University of Science and TechnologyChina Scholarship CouncilUniversity of TorontoWorld Health Organization
Mots-clésMedicineIsolation (microbiology)AsymptomaticCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Case fatality rateMortality rateInternal medicineTransmission (telecommunications)PediatricsEmergency medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)DiseaseEpidemiologyBiologyBioinformatics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Summary Background The optimal isolation duration for COVID-19 patients remains unclear. To support an update of WHO Living Clinical management guidelines for COVID-19 ( https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-clinical-2022.2 ), this rapid systematic review and modelling study addresses the effects of different isolation periods for preventing onward transmission leading to hospitalization and death among secondary cases. Methods We searched World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 database for clinical studies evaluating the impact of isolation periods for COVID-19 patients up to July 28, 2022. We performed random-effects meta-analyses to summarize testing rates of persistent test positivity rates after COVID-19 infection. We developed a model to compare the effects of the five-day isolation and removal of isolation based on a negative antigen test with ten-day isolation on onward transmission leading to hospitalization and death. We assumed that patients with a positive test are infectious and those with a negative test are not. If the test becomes negative, patients will stay negative. The model included estimates of test positivity rates, effective reproduction number, and hospitalization rate or case fatality rate. Findings Twelve studies addressing persistent test positivity rates including 2799 patients proved eligible. Asymptomatic patients (27.1%, 95% CI: 15.8% to 40.0%) had a significantly lower rapid antigen test (RAT) positive rate than symptomatic patients (68.1%, 95% CI: 40.6% to 90.3%) on day 5. The RAT positive rate was 21.5% (95% CI: 0 to 64.1%; moderate certainty) on day 10. Our modelling study suggested that the risk difference (RD) for asymptomatic patients between five-day isolation and ten-day isolation in hospitalization (2 more hospitalizations of secondary cases per 1000 patients isolated, 95% uncertainty interval (UI) 2 more to 3 more) and mortality (1 more per 1000 patients, 95% UI 0 to 1 more) of secondary cases proved very small (very low certainty). For symptomatic patients, the potential impact of five- versus ten-day isolation was much greater in hospitalizations (RD 19 more per 1000 patients, 95% UI 14 more to 24 more; very low certainty) and mortality (RD 5 more per 1000 patients, 95% UI 4 more to 6 more; very low certainty). There may be no difference between removing isolation based on a negative antigen test and ten-day isolation in the onward transmission leading to hospitalization or death, but the average isolation period (mean difference −3 days) will be shorter for the removal of isolation based on a negative antigen test (moderate certainty). Interpretation Five versus 10 days of isolation in asymptomatic patients may result in a small amount of onward transmission and negligible hospitalization and mortality, but in symptomatic patients concerning transmission and resulting hospitalization and mortality. The evidence is, however, very uncertain. Funding WHO. Research in context Evidence before this study Isolating infected patients and quarantining individuals with a high risk of recent infection remain widely used strategies to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2. There are no prior systematic reviews to evaluate effects relevant to decisions regarding protocols for ending COVID-19 isolation. Many modelling studies have, however, evaluated impact of five days of isolation or alternative strategies (e.g. 7 days and 10 days) with or without one negative lateral flow device on secondary infections or additional transmission risk. However, none has focused on the most patient-important outcomes - onward transmission leading to hospitalization or death. The optimal isolation duration for COVID-19 patients remains unclear. We searched WHO COVID-19 database for clinical studies evaluating the impact of isolation periods for COVID-19 patients up to July 28, 2022. We performed random-effects meta-analyses to summarize testing rates of persistent test positivity rates after COVID-19 infection. We used a model to compare the effects of the five-day isolation and removal of isolation based on a negative antigen test with ten-day isolation on onward transmission leading to hospitalization and death. Added value of this study To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and modelling study to compare effects of the five-day isolation and removal of isolation based on a negative antigen test with ten-day isolation on most patient-important outcomes - onward transmission leading to hospitalization or death. This study demonstrates that for symptomatic patients the five-day isolation may increase onward transmission and thus hospitalization and mortality of secondary cases compared with the ten-day isolation by a magnitude most would consider important. For asymptomatic patients, the increase in hospitalizations and death may be small enough to be considered unimportant. Removal of isolation based on a negative antigen test will probably shorten the average isolation period compared with isolating all patients for 10 days. Implications of all the available evidence Our study provides evidence that 5 versus 10 days of isolation in asymptomatic patients may result in a small amount of onward transmission and negligible hospitalization and mortality, but in symptomatic patients concerning transmission and resulting hospitalization and mortality.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,030
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,030
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,161

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0300,070
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0140,046
Bibliométrie0,0080,007
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0030,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,263
Tête enseignante GPT0,452
Écart entre enseignants0,189 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuemedRxivMême sujetSARS-CoV-2 detection and testingTravaux en français237 207