Related Experiment Video

Updated: Nov 22, 2025

Setup of Consumer Wearable Devices for Exposure and Health Monitoring in Population Studies
15:00

Setup of Consumer Wearable Devices for Exposure and Health Monitoring in Population Studies

Published on: February 3, 2023

2.8K

Mass screening vs lockdown vs combination of both to control COVID-19: A systematic review

Nadya Johanna1, Henrico Citrawijaya1, Grace Wangge2

  • 1Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta.

Journal of Public Health Research
|January 7, 2021
PubMed

Insights

Lockdowns effectively reduced COVID-19 spread, incidence, and mortality. Combining lockdowns with mass testing may offer greater benefits, but more research is needed on mass testing alone.

Area of Science:

  • Public Health
  • Epidemiology
  • Infectious Disease Control

Background:

  • The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated non-pharmacological interventions for control.
  • Lockdown and mass testing are key strategies to mitigate outbreaks.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the effectiveness of mass testing, lockdown, or a combination of both in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • To analyze impacts on incident cases, onward transmission, mortality, and resource use.

Main Methods:

  • Systematic search of 11 major databases conducted on June 8, 2020.
  • Inclusion of 14 primary studies (4 observational, 10 modeling) in English.
  • Focus on studies investigating mass screening, lockdown, or combined interventions for COVID-19.

Main Results:

  • Lockdown consistently reduced COVID-19 incidence, transmission, and mortality.
  • Mass testing showed potential in reducing infected individuals, based on one modeling study.
  • Limited evidence suggests combined lockdown and mass screening yield greater reductions than lockdown alone.

Conclusions:

  • Lockdowns are a proven effective intervention for COVID-19 control.
  • Combined strategies may enhance public health outcomes, warranting further investigation.
  • Insufficient evidence exists regarding the sole effectiveness of mass testing.
Keywords:
COVID-19SARS-CoV-2 infection mass screeningcommunity containmentcoronaviruslockdownquarantinerapid molecular test

More Related Videos

A High-Throughput Multiplexed Screening for Type 1 Diabetes, Celiac Diseases, and COVID-1906:46

A High-Throughput Multiplexed Screening for Type 1 Diabetes, Celiac Diseases, and COVID-19

Published on: July 5, 2022

3.0K
Dynamic Monitoring of Seroconversion using a Multianalyte Immunobead Assay for Covid-1908:48

Dynamic Monitoring of Seroconversion using a Multianalyte Immunobead Assay for Covid-19

Published on: February 16, 2022

3.2K

Related Concept Videos

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches01:23

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
269
Controls in Experiments01:13

Controls in Experiments

When conducting an experiment, it is crucial to have control to reduce bias and accurately measure the dependent variables. It also marks the results more reliable. Controls are elements in an experiment that have the same characteristics as the treatment groups but are not affected by the independent variable. By sorting these data into control and experimental conditions, the relationship between the dependent and independent variables can be drawn. A randomized experiment always includes a...
14.4K
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding01:25

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Confounding is a critical issue in epidemiological studies, often leading to misleading conclusions about associations between exposures and outcomes. It occurs when the relationship between the exposure and the outcome is mixed with the effects of other factors that influence the outcome. Given that, addressing confounding is of high importance for drawing accurate inferences in research.
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
224
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups01:20

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

Survival analysis is a cornerstone of medical research, used to evaluate the time until an event of interest occurs, such as death, disease recurrence, or recovery. Unlike standard statistical methods, survival analysis is particularly adept at handling censored data—instances where the event has not occurred for some participants by the end of the study or remains unobserved. To address these unique challenges, specialized techniques like the Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and...
407
Study Designs in Epidemiology01:20

Study Designs in Epidemiology

Epidemiological study designs are fundamental tools for investigating the distribution, determinants, and control of health conditions in populations. They help researchers understand the relationships between exposures and outcomes, and they broadly fall into two categories: "observational" and "experimental" studies.
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
645
Bias in Epidemiological Studies01:29

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

Biases can arise at various stages of research, from study design and data collection to analysis and interpretation. Recognizing and addressing these biases is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of epidemiological findings.Broadly speaking, biases in epidemiology fall into three main categories: selection bias, information bias, and confounding. A more detailed description of possible biases is:  
987