Duduzile Ndwandwe1, Lindi Mathebula1,2, Olatunji Adetokunboh3,4, Raoul Kamadjeu5, Charles Shey Wiysonge1,4,6. 1. Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa. 2. Communicable Disease Control, Department of Health, Western Cape, South Africa. 3. Department of Science and Innovation-National Research Foundation (DSI-NRF) Centre of Excellence in Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa. 4. Department of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa. 5. UNICEF Program Division, Public Health Emergencies Team, New York, USA. 6. School of Public Health and Family Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Most people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have mild disease with non-specific symptoms, although a few becoming critically ill with septic shock and multiple organ failure. There is an unknown proportion of infected individuals who remain asymptomatic and infectious. Universal screening for COVID-19 infections to detect individuals who are infected before they present clinically could therefore be an important measure to contain the spread of the disease. We highlight a Cochrane rapid review which assessed the effectiveness and accuracy of universal screening for COVID-19 infection. METHODS: the authors of the Cochrane review searched multiple electronic databases to identify studies reporting on the effectiveness of universal screening and reporting on screening test accuracy. Eligible participants for the review included people who had not sought care for potential COVID-19 symptoms. RESULTS: the authors included 22 publications, with none of them conducted in Africa. Two modelling studies reported on the beneficial and negative effects of screening; and 20 studies (cohort and modelling) reported data on the accuracy of screening tests. The included studies had wide variability in the baseline prevalence of COVID-19 infection as well as study settings and methods. All cohort studies compared screening strategies to reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as the gold standard. The rapid review suggests that there is low certainty of evidence that screening at travel hubs may slow the importation of infected cases. Furthermore, the review highlights the uncertainty and variation in the accuracy of screening. CONCLUSION: given the low accuracy of the tests included in this review, a high proportion of COVID-19 infected individuals may be missed and go on to infect others. In addition, some healthy individuals may be falsely identified as positive, requiring confirmatory testing and potentially leading to the unnecessary isolation of these individuals. Copyright: Duduzile Ndwandwe et al.
INTRODUCTION: coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Most people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have mild disease with non-specific symptoms, although a few becoming critically ill with septic shock and multiple organ failure. There is an unknown proportion of infected individuals who remain asymptomatic and infectious. Universal screening for COVID-19 infections to detect individuals who are infected before they present clinically could therefore be an important measure to contain the spread of the disease. We highlight a Cochrane rapid review which assessed the effectiveness and accuracy of universal screening for COVID-19 infection. METHODS: the authors of the Cochrane review searched multiple electronic databases to identify studies reporting on the effectiveness of universal screening and reporting on screening test accuracy. Eligible participants for the review included people who had not sought care for potential COVID-19 symptoms. RESULTS: the authors included 22 publications, with none of them conducted in Africa. Two modelling studies reported on the beneficial and negative effects of screening; and 20 studies (cohort and modelling) reported data on the accuracy of screening tests. The included studies had wide variability in the baseline prevalence of COVID-19 infection as well as study settings and methods. All cohort studies compared screening strategies to reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as the gold standard. The rapid review suggests that there is low certainty of evidence that screening at travel hubs may slow the importation of infected cases. Furthermore, the review highlights the uncertainty and variation in the accuracy of screening. CONCLUSION: given the low accuracy of the tests included in this review, a high proportion of COVID-19 infected individuals may be missed and go on to infect others. In addition, some healthy individuals may be falsely identified as positive, requiring confirmatory testing and potentially leading to the unnecessary isolation of these individuals. Copyright: Duduzile Ndwandwe et al.
Entities:
Keywords:
COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Universal screening; screening test accuracy
Authors: Varvara A Mouchtouri; Eleni P Christoforidou; Maria An der Heiden; Cinthia Menel Lemos; Margherita Fanos; Ute Rexroth; Ulrike Grote; Evelien Belfroid; Corien Swaan; Christos Hadjichristodoulou Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Benjamin J Cowling; Lincoln L H Lau; Peng Wu; Helen W C Wong; Vicky J Fang; Steven Riley; Hiroshi Nishiura Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Varvara A Mouchtouri; Zacharoula Bogogiannidou; Martin Dirksen-Fischer; Sotirios Tsiodras; Christos Hadjichristodoulou Journal: Trop Med Health Date: 2020-09-14
Authors: Francesc López Seguí; Jose Maria Navarrete Duran; Albert Tuldrà; Maria Sarquella; Boris Revollo; Josep Maria Llibre; Jordi Ara Del Rey; Oriol Estrada Cuxart; Roger Paredes Deirós; Guillem Hernández Guillamet; Bonaventura Clotet Sala; Josep Vidal Alaball; Patricia Such Faro Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-07-03 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Francesc López Seguí; Oriol Estrada Cuxart; Oriol Mitjà I Villar; Guillem Hernández Guillamet; Núria Prat Gil; Josep Maria Bonet; Mar Isnard Blanchar; Nemesio Moreno Millan; Ignacio Blanco; Marc Vilar Capella; Martí Català Sabaté; Anna Aran Solé; Josep Maria Argimon Pallàs; Bonaventura Clotet; Jordi Ara Del Rey Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 3.390