Rapid Response to an Outbreak in Qingdao, China

Xing, Yuhan; Wong, Gary; Ni, Wei; Hu, Xiaowen; Xing, Quansheng

doi:10.1056/nejmc2032361

Cited by 81 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To reduce the circulation of the virus in the population, SARS-CoV-2 carriers need to be identified rapidly and isolated as soon as possible, ideally before the onset of symptoms. When the virus has disseminated throughout a whole country, massive testing becomes of utmost urgent importance to combat the pandemic [2][3][4] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Systematic review and meta-analysis

Ibrahimi

Delaunay‐Moisan

Hill

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diagnosis of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients and screening of populations for SARS-CoV-2 infection require access to straightforward, low-cost and high-throughput testing. The recommended nasopharyngeal swab tests are limited by the need of trained professionals and specific consumables and this procedure is poorly accepted as a screening method. The use of alternative validated samples such as saliva is thus much awaited. In order to compare saliva and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, we designed a meta-analysis searching in PubMed up to December 29th, 2020 with the key words ((SARS-CoV-2 OR COVID-19) AND (saliva OR oral fluid)) NOT (review[Publication Type] applying the following criteria: records published in peer reviewed scientific journals, in English, with at least 15 nasopharyngeal/orapharyngeal swabs and saliva paired samples tested by RT-PCR, studies with available raw data including numbers of positive and negative tests with the two sampling methods. For all studies, concordance and sensitivity were calculated and then pooled in a random-effects model. A total of 318 studies were retrieved, of which 49 were eligible, reporting on 16,272 pairs of nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal and saliva samples. Meta-analysis showed high concordance, 92.6% (95%CI: 89.6-94.8), across studies and pooled sensitivities of 86.7% (95%CI: 83.5-89.3) and 92.2 (95%CI: 89.4-94.4) from saliva and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs respectively. Heterogeneity across studies was 80.0% for saliva and 84.0% for nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs. Our meta-analysis strongly suggests that saliva could be used for frequent testing of COVID-19 patients and en masse screening of populations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Systematic review and meta-analysis

Ibrahimi

Delaunay‐Moisan

Hill

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of small outbreaks in a few cities were rapidly controlled through intense public health measures. The latest outbreaks took place in the cities of Kashgar (Xinjiang Province) and in Qingdao (Shandong Province) in October 2020; they were controlled by aggressive public health measures including testing of some 5 million and 10 million population, respectively, within a few days [ 39 , 40 ]. SARS-CoV-2 surveillance and COVID-19 control measures continue in China through intensive TTT measures.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID-19 in Germany and China: mitigation versus elimination strategy

Razum

Jahn

et al. 2021

Global Health Action

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background : The COVID-19 pandemic shows variable dynamics in WHO Regions, with lowest disease burden in the Western-Pacific Region. While China has been able to rapidly eliminate transmission of SARS-CoV-2, Germany – as well as most of Europe and the Americas – is struggling with high numbers of cases and deaths. Objective : We analyse COVID-19 epidemiology and control strategies in China and in Germany, two countries which have chosen profoundly different approaches to deal with the epidemic. Methods : In this narrative review, we searched the literature from 1 December 2019, to 4 December 2020. Results : China and several neighbours (e.g. Australia, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Thailand) have achieved COVID-19 elimination or sustained low case numbers. This can be attributed to: (1) experience with previous coronavirus outbreaks; (2) classification of SARS-CoV-2 in the highest risk category and consequent early employment of aggressive control measures; (3) mandatory isolation of cases and contacts in institutions; (4) broad employment of modern contact tracking technology; (5) travel restrictions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 re-importation; (6) cohesive communities with varying levels of social control. Conclusions : Early implementation of intense and sustained control measures is key to achieving a near normal social and economic life.

show abstract

“…False‐positive COVID‐19 results were criticized in a nonscientific manner, 3 and scant discussion addressed the importance of external quality assessment schemes from the third party, which are necessary to prevent technical errors and reagent or laboratory contamination 5 . Scientific evidence, and COVID‐19 data reported in Australia, New Zealand, China, and several other countries that achieved COVID‐19 elimination or containment could evidently reject this factitious argument 3,6 . Regarding sensitivity, there are several reasons to bring negative results among infected individuals, and RT‐PCR test has been clinically used to rule‐in COVID‐19 cases 5 .…”

Section: A Puzzling Controversy In Japan: Access To Testing and Perfomentioning

confidence: 99%