Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39484353›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in public health2024

Effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 transmission: rapid review of evidence from Italy, the United States, the United Kingdom, and China.

Laura J Faherty, Pedro Nascimento de Lima, Jing Zhi Lim, Derek Roberts, Sarah Karr, Emily Lawson, Henry H Willis

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Epidemiology of Norovirus Outbreaks in Kindergartens, Primary Schools, and Junior High Schools in Xi'an, China, From October 2020 to February 2023.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Laura J FahertyRAND Corporation, Boston, MA, United States.
Pedro Nascimento de LimaRAND Corporation, Arlington, VA, United States.
Jing Zhi LimRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, United States.
Derek RobertsRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, United States.
Sarah KarrRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, United States.
Emily LawsonRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, United States.
Henry H WillisRAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Prior to the development of COVID-19 vaccines, policymakers instituted various non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to limit transmission. Prior studies have attempted to examine the extent to which these NPIs achieved their goals of containment, suppression, or mitigation of disease transmission. Existing evidence syntheses have found that numerous factors limit comparability across studies, and the evidence on NPI effectiveness during COVID-19 pandemic remains sparse and inconsistent. This study documents the magnitude and variation in NPI effectiveness in reducing COVID-19 transmission (i.e., reduction in effective reproduction rate [R Methods: Our rapid review and narrative synthesis of existing research identified 126 studies meeting our screening criteria. We selected four contexts with >5 articles to facilitate a meaningful synthesis. This step yielded an analytic sample of 61 articles that used data from China, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Results: We found wide variation and substantial uncertainty around the effectiveness of NPIs at reducing disease transmission. Studies of a single intervention or NPIs that are the least stringent had estimated Reff reductions in the 10-50% range; those that examined so-called "lockdowns" were associated with greater Reff reductions that ranged from 40 to 90%, with many in the 70-80% range. While many studies reported on multiple NPIs, only six of the 61 studies explicitly used the framing of "stringency" or "mild versus strict" or "tiers" of NPIs, concepts that are highly relevant for decisionmakers. Conclusion: Existing evidence suggests that NPIs reduce COVID-19 transmission by 40 to 90 percent. This paper documents the extent of the variation in NPI effectiveness estimates and highlights challenges presented by a lack of standardization in modeling approaches. Further research on NPI effectiveness at different stringency levels is needed to inform policy responses to future pandemics.

Indexed as

Communicable Disease ControlCOVID-19QuarantineChinaHumansItalyPandemicsSARS-CoV-2United KingdomUnited Statescontact rateCOVID-19disease transmissioneffective reproduction numberinfectious disease modelingnon-pharmaceutical interventions

Identifiers

PMID39484353
PMCPMC11524874

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.