20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effectiveness of social distancing measures and lockdowns for reducing transmission of COVID-19 in non-healthcare, community-based settings

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Social distancing measures (SDMs) are community-level interventions that aim to reduce person-to-person contacts in the community. SDMs were a major part of the responses first to contain, then to mitigate, the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the community. Common SDMs included limiting the size of gatherings, closing schools and/or workplaces, implementing work-from-home arrangements, or more stringent restrictions such as lockdowns. This systematic review summarized the evidence for the effectiveness of nine SDMs. Almost all of the studies included were observational in nature, which meant that there were intrinsic risks of bias that could have been avoided were conditions randomly assigned to study participants. There were no instances where only one form of SDM had been in place in a particular setting during the study period, making it challenging to estimate the separate effect of each intervention. The more stringent SDMs such as stay-at-home orders, restrictions on mass gatherings and closures were estimated to be most effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Most studies included in this review suggested that combinations of SDMs successfully slowed or even stopped SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the community. However, individual effects and optimal combinations of interventions, as well as the optimal timing for particular measures, require further investigation.

          This article is part of the theme issue 'The effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: the evidence'.

          Related collections

          Most cited references316

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

          This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating. Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence.

            This article introduces the approach of GRADE to rating quality of evidence. GRADE specifies four categories-high, moderate, low, and very low-that are applied to a body of evidence, not to individual studies. In the context of a systematic review, quality reflects our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct. In the context of recommendations, quality reflects our confidence that the effect estimates are adequate to support a particular recommendation. Randomized trials begin as high-quality evidence, observational studies as low quality. "Quality" as used in GRADE means more than risk of bias and so may also be compromised by imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness of study results, and publication bias. In addition, several factors can increase our confidence in an estimate of effect. GRADE provides a systematic approach for considering and reporting each of these factors. GRADE separates the process of assessing quality of evidence from the process of making recommendations. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation depend on more than just the quality of evidence. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Plasma Hsp90 levels in patients with systemic sclerosis and relation to lung and skin involvement: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study

              Our previous study demonstrated increased expression of Heat shock protein (Hsp) 90 in the skin of patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc). We aimed to evaluate plasma Hsp90 in SSc and characterize its association with SSc-related features. Ninety-two SSc patients and 92 age-/sex-matched healthy controls were recruited for the cross-sectional analysis. The longitudinal analysis comprised 30 patients with SSc associated interstitial lung disease (ILD) routinely treated with cyclophosphamide. Hsp90 was increased in SSc compared to healthy controls. Hsp90 correlated positively with C-reactive protein and negatively with pulmonary function tests: forced vital capacity and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO). In patients with diffuse cutaneous (dc) SSc, Hsp90 positively correlated with the modified Rodnan skin score. In SSc-ILD patients treated with cyclophosphamide, no differences in Hsp90 were found between baseline and after 1, 6, or 12 months of therapy. However, baseline Hsp90 predicts the 12-month change in DLCO. This study shows that Hsp90 plasma levels are increased in SSc patients compared to age-/sex-matched healthy controls. Elevated Hsp90 in SSc is associated with increased inflammatory activity, worse lung functions, and in dcSSc, with the extent of skin involvement. Baseline plasma Hsp90 predicts the 12-month change in DLCO in SSc-ILD patients treated with cyclophosphamide.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Data curationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Investigation
                Role: Investigation
                Role: Investigation
                Role: Investigation
                Role: Investigation
                Role: Investigation
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Journal
                Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci
                Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci
                RSTA
                roypta
                Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences
                The Royal Society
                1364-503X
                1471-2962
                October 9, 2023
                August 24, 2023
                August 24, 2023
                : 381
                : 2257 , Theme issue ‘The effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: the evidence’ compiled and edited by Professor Sir Mark Walport
                : 20230132
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, , Hong Kong, People's Republic of China
                [ 2 ] Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, , Oxford, UK
                [ 3 ] Laboratory of Data Discovery for Health, Hong Kong Science and Technology Park, , New Territories, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China
                [ 4 ] Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, , Liverpool, UK
                [ 5 ] Tropical and Infectious Disease Unit, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, , Liverpool, UK
                [ 6 ] Section of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, , Kobenhavn, Denmark
                [ 7 ] MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, , London, UK
                [ 8 ] Pandemic Sciences Institute, University of Oxford, , Oxford, UK
                Author notes
                [ † ]

                Joint senior authors.

                Electronic supplementary material is available online at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6677632.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8514-2048
                http://orcid.org/0009-0004-2441-0263
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0891-4611
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6297-7154
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0195-2463
                Article
                rsta20230132
                10.1098/rsta.2023.0132
                10446910
                37611629
                510e74a6-9214-43bb-ba04-d217cbfa5877
                © 2023 The Authors.

                Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : May 8, 2023
                : May 23, 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: Research Grants Council;
                Award ID: T11-712/19-N
                Funded by: Collaborative Research Scheme;
                Award ID: C7123-20G
                Funded by: National Institute of Health Research (NIHR);
                Award ID: NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) i
                Funded by: Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000266;
                Award ID: Studentship for Cathal Mills, University of Oxford
                Funded by: Royal Society, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000288;
                Categories
                1008
                119
                175
                Articles
                Review Articles
                Custom metadata
                October 9, 2023

                transmission,social distancing,lockdown,sars-cov-2,schools,care homes

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content119

                Cited by14

                Most referenced authors12,816