4.5 Article

Epidemiological evaluation of mass testing in a small municipality in the Netherlands during the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic

Journal

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND INFECTION
Volume 150, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0950268822001777

Keywords

COVID-19; COVID-19 testing; mass screening; Netherlands; SARS-CoV-2

Funding

  1. Dutch Ministry of Health,Welfare and Sports

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A study in Utrecht, the Netherlands, found that mass testing can significantly increase test incidence and provide a more complete view of the presence of SARS-CoV-2. However, the proportionality of its overall gain remains uncertain.
During 6 weeks in February-March 2021, the Dutch municipal health service Utrecht studied the epidemiological effects on test incidence and the detection of acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with mass testing (MT). During MT, inhabitants of Bunschoten could repeatedly test regardless of symptoms and as often as desired at the close-by test facilities in the municipality. Data from the regular COVID-19 registration was used for analysis. In Bunschoten, MT caused a significant increase in test incidence and an immediate increase in the number of detected active infections, in contrast to a stabilisation in the rest of the province of Utrecht. Age distribution of test incidence shifted to the older population in Bunschoten during MT. During MT, there was a 6.8 percentage point increase in detected asymptomatic cases, a 0.4 percentage point increase in pre-symptomatic cases and a decrease of 0.5 days between onset of symptoms and test date. This study has shown that MT increases test incidence and helps to obtain a more complete view of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in a community, which can be useful in specific situations with a defined target group or goal. However, the question remains open whether the use of MT is proportionate to the overall gain.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available