Observational studyFrontiers in public health2025
Efficiency evaluation on case finding strategy for COVID-19 outbreak control under China's "dynamic zero-case policy": a retrospective field epidemiology study.
Observational study in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the efficiency of case-finding strategy for COVID-19 outbreak control during the "dynamic zero-case policy" period in Zhejiang Province, China, in 2022. Methods: A field epidemiological observational study was conducted to describe the proportion and time distribution of all cases identified in the event. Categorical data were expressed as counts/proportions or positive rates. The proportion of control lead-time was developed to evaluate the performance of management in various at-risk populations. Positivity rates were used to evaluate the efficiency of certain case-finding approaches. The Pearson χ Results: Close-contact tracing identified 62.3% of the total cases. Low-risk area resident screening revealed 15.2% of the cases, most of which were ascertained within the first 3 days. All cases found by second-layer contact tracing had a longer control lead-time, but transmission events were believed to occur during the transportation or quarantine period. A higher proportion of positive control lead-time was more effective in curbing SARS-CoV-2 transmission on subsequent days. The proportion of control lead-time between those with and without quarantine status was statistically different (χ Conclusion: Rapid and stringent comprehensive public health and social measures can contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in a localized area within weeks. Close-contact tracing plays a pivotal role in COVID-19 outbreak control, but contact tracing alone is insufficient to contain the transmission. Mass screening in the early stage and outbreak site exposure person tracing also play an important role for cases finding. It is suggested that in containing severe acute infections with direct transmission route in the future, if stringent social distancing requirements have already being implemented, measures such as tracing second-layer contacts, repeated mass screening for medium-or low-risk residents during the middle and late stages of the event are not recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.