Skip header and navigation

20 records – page 1 of 2.

Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
PH092301-01 ESR
Question Submitted
September 23, 2020
Date Completed
September 25, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
PH092301-01 ESR
Question Submitted
September 23, 2020
Date Completed
September 25, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Category
Administration
Subject
Screening
Contact Tracing
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Dalidowicz, M; Miller, L. Are less frequent (than daily) follow-up/monitoring used for close contacts in COVID or other communicable diseases? 2020 Sep 25; Document no.: PH092301-01 ESR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 27 p. (CEST evidence search report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH092301 RR
Question Submitted
September 23, 2020
Date Completed
October 6, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH092301 RR
Question Submitted
September 23, 2020
Date Completed
October 6, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Key Findings
The evidence for alternative active monitoring schedules for confirmed cases of COVID-19 and their cases is limited
The prevailing consensus is that confirmed cases of COVID-19 and their high-risk close contacts should undergo active daily monitoring
When public health resources are limited, active monitoring programs should consider prioritizing vulnerable populations, incorporating passive monitoring practices and adopting virtual monitoring platforms
Category
Administration
Subject
Screening
Contact Tracing
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
McLean, M; Groot, G; Dalidowicz, M; Miller, L. Are less frequent (than daily) follow-up/monitoring used in COVID or other communicable diseases? 2020 Oct 6; Document no.:PH092301 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 31 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
EOC012601-01 ESR
Question Submitted
January 26, 2021
Date Completed
January 29, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Complete Date: January 29, 2021 Subject(s): Antigens, Asymptomatic, Screening Methods Cite
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
EOC012601-01 ESR
Question Submitted
January 26, 2021
Date Completed
January 29, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Category
Diagnostics
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Screening
Antigens
Asymptomatic
Testing
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Dalidowicz, M; Young, C. How effective is surveillance antigenic testing? 2021 Jan 29; Document no.: EOC012601-01 ESR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 32 p. (CEST evidence search report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC012601 RR
Question Submitted
January 26, 2021
Date Completed
February 12, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
: COVID-19 rapid antigen mass screening Review ID: EOC012601 RR Date/Time: February 12, 2021 11:30
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC012601 RR
Question Submitted
January 26, 2021
Date Completed
February 12, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· Studies suggest that antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) can be used in a population level with high prevalence of COVID-19 disease where health systems are overwhelmed or where nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) such as real time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) are not available. · The Canadian COVID-19 Testing and Screening Expert Advisory Panel recommends the use of frequent screening with rapid diagnostic tests in selected groups to limit outbreaks. · WHO and European Center for Disease Prevention and Control recommend using Ag-RDTs with high sensitivity and specificity when NAATs are not available or turnaround time negatively affects NAATs’ clinical utility. For example, COVID-19 Ag-RDTs can be used to surveil health care workers or residents of congregate dwellings during outbreaks or when community transmission rates are high, to screen at-risk individuals to support outbreak investigations, or to screen suspected COVID-19 outbreaks in early stages in settings where NAATs are not available. · WHO does not recommend Ag-RDTs usage when expected prevalence is low (e.g., screening at points of entry) unless an Ag-RDT’s specificity is high (>99%). · Studies have shown that Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Test (Abbott) can have overall sensitivity of 72.6% to 95.2% and specificity of 98.0% to 100% and suggest that this test is appropriate for contagious case identification and asymptomatic case screening, especially in high prevalence (>5%) settings. · WHO recommends that iterative Ag-RDT testing or confirmatory rRT-PCR testing be done in symptomatic patients or asymptomatic contacts of COVID-19 cases since a negative Ag-RDT result cannot completely exclude an active COVID-19 infection. · Challenges of population level testing (whether they succeed or fail) such as required logistics and resources (e.g., immunizers, access to Ag-RDTs and equipment), performance accuracy of Ag-RDTs (e.g., false positive or negative rates in real world settings), and public trust and engagement in testing and future measures (e.g., vaccine uptake) are yet to be considered.
Category
Diagnostics
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Antigens
Asymptomatic
Screening
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Azizian, A; Groot, G; Reeder, B; Hamula, C; Dalidowicz, M; Young, C. How effective is surveillance antigenic testing? 2021 Feb 12; Document no.: EOC012601 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 32 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
EOC082502-01 ESR
Question Submitted
August 25, 2020
Date Completed
August 27, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
harm the eyes.” CDC. Migration and Border Health Considerations for Health Screening for COVID-19
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
EOC082502-01 ESR
Question Submitted
August 25, 2020
Date Completed
August 27, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Category
Administration
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Infrared Thermometers
Screening
Public Health
Risk
Population
All
Priority Level
Level 3 completed within 2-3 days
Cite As
Ellsworth, C; Fox, L. Is there evidence of risks for using infrared thermometers? 2020 Aug 27; Document no.: EOC082502-01 ESR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 11 p. (CEST evidence search report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC082502 RR
Question Submitted
August 25, 2020
Date Completed
August 29, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
thermometers allows for mass temperature screening as they are able to quickly determine the temperature
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC082502 RR
Question Submitted
August 25, 2020
Date Completed
August 29, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· Infrared thermometers detect the infrared waves emitted by an object and convert into an electrical signal to display the distribution of temperature · Infrared thermometers do not emit radiation, however many are equipped with a laser tracker beam, similar to that found in television remote controls · The Pineal Gland is located deep inside the brain, separated from the forehead by the presence of the skull and several centimeters of brain tissue
Category
Administration
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Infrared Thermometers
Screening
Public Health
Risk
Population
All
Priority Level
Level 3 completed within 2-3 days
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Ellsworth, C; Fox, L. Is there evidence of risks for using infrared thermometers? 2020 Aug 29; Document no.: EOC082502 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 12 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
EOC090201-01 ESR
Question Submitted
September 2, 2020
Date Completed
September 2, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
QUESTION: Is the use of thermometers an effective screening strategy for students in schools during
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
EOC090201-01 ESR
Question Submitted
September 2, 2020
Date Completed
September 2, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Screening
Schools
Population
All Pediatrics
Clinical Setting
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 completed within 8 hours
Cite As
Mueller, M; Young, C. Is the use of thermometers an effective screening strategy for students in schools during COVID-19? 2020 Sep 2; Document no.: EOC090201-01 ESR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 6 p. (CEST evidence search report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC090201 RR
Question Submitted
September 2, 2020
Date Completed
September 4, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Review Title: Is the use of thermometers an effective screening strategy for students in schools during
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC090201 RR
Question Submitted
September 2, 2020
Date Completed
September 4, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· Temperature screening has not yet been demonstrated to reduce COVID-19 spread or accurately identify COVID-19 cases in schools. This did not prove to be a useful strategy when implemented in Singapore during the 2003 SARS epidemic. · 14% to 19% of children with COVID-19 have an asymptomatic presentation and fever only develops in less than half of symptomatic pediatric cases. Fever is also a common presentation of childhood illnesses unrelated to COVID-19. · Chemical and plastic-strip thermometers are considered unreliable in pediatric clinical settings and there is also an element of user error with any thermometer type.
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Screening
Schools
Population
All Pediatrics
Clinical Setting
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 completed within 8 hours
Cite As
Radu, L; Groot, G; Badea, A; Mueller, M; Young, C. Is the use of thermometers an effective screening strategy for students in schools during COVID-19? 2020 Sep 4; Document no.: EOC090201 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 13 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PPE041701 RR
Question Submitted
April 17, 2020
Date Completed
April 17, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Personal Protective Equipment
for screening individuals for possible COVID-19, based on their presenting symptoms. As more information comes
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PPE041701 RR
Question Submitted
April 17, 2020
Date Completed
April 17, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Personal Protective Equipment
Key Findings
The most commonly reported symptoms inCOVID-19patientswere: fever (79-89%); cough (58-69%); fatigue/muscle aches (29-36%); dyspnea (22-38%); chest distress (31%); and expectoration (12-29%).
Less common were various GI symptoms (9-18%) including diarrhea (5-7%) and nausea (4%),as well as sore throat (10-12%) and headache (6-12%).
Although the Government of Canada lists runny nose as a potential symptom for a suspect case, it was not reported as such in the meta-analyses examined.
Category
Clinical Presentation
Subject
Natural History
Symptoms
Screening
Priority Level
Level 2 completed within 8 hours
Cite As
McCarron, M; Groot, G; Dalidowicz, M; Miller, L. What distinguishes COVID-19 from influenza-like illnesses? 2020 Apr 17; Document no.: PPE041701 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 5 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
PPE041701-01 ESR
Question Submitted
April 17, 2020
Date Completed
April 17, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Personal Protective Equipment
after screening with real-time RT-PCR and cell-based culture techniques demonstrated the potential
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
PPE041701-01 ESR
Question Submitted
April 17, 2020
Date Completed
April 17, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Personal Protective Equipment
Category
Clinical Presentation
Subject
Natural History
Symptoms
Screening
Priority Level
Level 2 completed within 8 hours
Cite As
Miller, L; Dalidowicz, M. What distinguishes COVID-19 from influenza-like illnesses? 2020 Apr 16; Document no.: PPE041701-01 ESR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 15 p. (CEST evidence search report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail

20 records – page 1 of 2.