Evidence mapPaperPMID 40601586Full record

Trial reportPloS one2025

VIVALDI-CT shaping care home COVID-19 testing policy: A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of asymptomatic testing compared to standard care in care home staff.

Oliver Stirrup, James Blackstone, Iona Cullen-Stephenson, Robert Fenner, Natalie Adams, Ruth Leiser, Maria Krutikov, Borscha Azmi, Nick Freemantle, Adam Gordon and 12 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05639205 (Shaping Care Home COVID-19 Testing Policy), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

NCT05639205 phase3unknown statusnot on this map

Shaping Care Home COVID-19 Testing Policy: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial of Asymptomatic Testing Compared to Standard Care in Care Home Staff.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity College, LondonRan2022 to 2024Enrolled280ConditionsCOVID-19ArmsLateral Flow Device
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

22 authors.

Oliver StirrupInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8705-3281
James BlackstoneComprehensive Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4335-5269
Iona Cullen-StephensonComprehensive Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Robert FennerComprehensive Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Natalie AdamsUK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Ruth LeiserSchool of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Maria KrutikovInstitute of Health Informatics, UCL, London, United Kingdom.
Borscha AzmiInstitute of Health Informatics, UCL, London, United Kingdom.
Nick FreemantleComprehensive Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Adam GordonSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Martyn ReganSchool of Health Sciences and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Martin KnappDepartment of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.
Lara GoscéInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2392-6271
Catherine HendersonCare Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.
Susan HopkinsUK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Arpana VermaSchool of Health Sciences and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Jackie CassellUK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Dorina CadarBrighton & Sussex Medical School, University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1398-5841
Tom FowlerUK Health Security Agency, London, United Kingdom.
Andrew CopasInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Paul FlowersSchool of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Laura ShallcrossInstitute of Health Informatics, UCL, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-pharmaceutical interventions were used widely in care homes for older people during the COVID-19 pandemic, but there have been few randomised trials to support policy decisions. We aimed to evaluate the effect of biweekly asymptomatic staff testing with support funding for sick pay and agency staffing on the clinical outcomes of residents.

methodsWe conducted a cluster randomised unblinded superiority trial, aiming to recruit up to 280 residential and/or nursing homes in England providing care to adults aged >65 years. Homes were randomised 1:1 to the control arm, which followed national testing policy (comprising symptomatic plus outbreak testing at trial initiation) or intervention (additional twice weekly asymptomatic staff testing for SARS-CoV-2, staff sick pay and agency backfill). Outcomes were evaluated using health data from routine national datasets in combination with aggregate data from participating homes. The primary outcome was the incidence of COVID-19-related hospital admissions in residents.

resultsThe trial was conducted from January to August 2023, with 41 care homes randomised to intervention and 40 randomised to control included in the analysis. The trial was stopped early as it was not adequately powered for the primary outcome due to site recruitment and primary outcome events being substantially lower than expected. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of resident COVID-linked hospital admission incidence between intervention and control arms (22.7/1000 person-years vs 15.0/1000 person-years, incidence rate ratio 1.19, 95%CI 0.55-2.58, P = 0.66; incidence rate difference 4.0, 95%CI -14.3 to 22.2). Trial set up took less than three months. Most trial outcomes were derived from routinely collected data. Recorded uptake of staff testing in the intervention arm was low (mean per home each week 14.4%).

conclusionThis trial was not well-powered to evaluate the impact of the intervention on the primary outcome, and recorded uptake of staff testing was low. However, our pre-existing care home network underpinned by linked routinely collected data provides a model for more agile interventional studies in the care home setting. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRATION: NCT05639205.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 TestingNursing HomesAgedAged, 80 and overEnglandFemaleHomes for the AgedHospitalizationHumansMaleSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID40601586
PMCPMC12221029

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.