Travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review.
Jacob Burns,Ani Movsisyan,Jan M Stratil,Michaela Coenen,Karl Mf Emmert-Fees,Karin Geffert,Sabine Hoffmann,Olaf Horstick,Michael Laxy,Lisa M Pfadenhauer,Peter von Philipsborn,Kerstin Sell,Stephan Voss,Eva Rehfuess,Karl MF Emmert-Fees
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013717
IF: 8.4
2021-01-29
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Abstract:In late 2019, first cases of coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID‐19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2, were reported in Wuhan, China. Subsequently COVID‐19 spread rapidly around the world. To contain the ensuing pandemic, numerous countries have implemented control measures related to international travel, including border closures, partial travel restrictions, entry or exit screening, and quarantine of travellers. To assess the effectiveness of travel‐related control measures during the COVID‐19 pandemic on infectious disease and screening‐related outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and COVID‐19‐specific databases, including the WHO Global Database on COVID‐19 Research, the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register, and the CDC COVID‐19 Research Database on 26 June 2020. We also conducted backward‐citation searches with existing reviews. We considered experimental, quasi‐experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of travel‐related control measures affecting human travel across national borders during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We also included studies concerned with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) as indirect evidence. Primary outcomes were cases avoided, cases detected and a shift in epidemic development due to the measures. Secondary outcomes were other infectious disease transmission outcomes, healthcare utilisation, resource requirements and adverse effects if identified in studies assessing at least one primary outcome. One review author screened titles and abstracts; all excluded abstracts were screened in duplicate. Two review authors independently screened full texts. One review author extracted data, assessed risk of bias and appraised study quality. At least one additional review author checked for correctness of all data reported in the 'Risk of bias' assessment, quality appraisal and data synthesis. For assessing the risk of bias and quality of included studies, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS‐2) tool for observational studies concerned with screening, ROBINS‐I for observational ecological studies and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. One review author assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE, and the review author team discussed ratings. We included 40 records reporting on 36 unique studies. We found 17 modelling studies, 7 observational screening studies and one observational ecological study on COVID‐19, four modelling and six observational studies on SARS, and one modelling study on SARS and MERS, covering a variety of settings and epidemic stages. Most studies compared travel‐related control measures against a counterfactual scenario in which the intervention measure was not implemented. However, some modelling studies described additional comparator scenarios, such as different levels of travel restrictions, or a combination of measures. There were concerns with the quality of many modelling studies and the risk of bias of observational studies. Many modelling studies used potentially inappropriate assumptions about the structure and input parameters of models, and failed to adequately assess uncertainty. Concerns with observational screening studies commonly related to the reference test and the flow of the screening process. Studies on COVID‐19 Travel restrictions reducing cross‐border travel Eleven studies employed models to simulate a reduction in travel volume; one observational ecological study assessed travel restrictions in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Very low‐certainty evidence from modelling studies suggests that when implemented at the beginning of the outbreak, cross‐border travel restrictions may lead to a reduction in the number of new cases of between 26% to 90% (4 studies), the number of deaths (1 study), the time to outbreak of between 2 and 26 days (2 studies), the risk of outbreak of between 1% to 37% (2 studies), and the effective reproduction number (1 modelling and 1 observational ecological study). Low‐certainty evidence from modelling studies suggests a reduction in the number of imported or exported cases of between 70% to 81% (5 studies), and in the growth acceleration of epidemic progression (1 study). Screening at borders with or without quarantine Evidence from three modelling studies of entry and exit symptom screening without quarantine suggests delays in the time to outbreak of between 1 to 183 days (very low‐certainty evidence) and a detection rate of infected travellers of between 10% to 53% (low‐certainty evidence). Six observational studies of entry and exit screening were conducted in specific settings such as evacuation flights and cruise ship outbreaks. Screening approaches varied but followed a similar structure, involving symptom screening of all individuals at departure or upon arrival, followed -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal