Long distance airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2:rapid systematic review

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential for long distance airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in indoor community settings and to investigate factors that might influence transmission. DESIGN: Rapid systematic review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, medRxiv, Arxiv, and WHO COVID-19 Research Database for studies published from 27 July 2020 to 19 January 2022; existing relevant rapid systematic review for studies published from 1 January 2020 to 27 July 2020; and citation analysis in Web of Science and Cocites. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies reporting on transmission events in indoor community (non-healthcare) settings in which long distance airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was the most likely route. Studies such as those of household transmission where the main transmission route was likely to be close contact or fomite transmission were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction was done by one reviewer and independently checked by a second reviewer. Primary outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 infections through long distance airborne transmission (>2 m) and any modifying factors. Methodological quality of included studies was rated using the quality criteria checklist, and certainty of primary outcomes was determined using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Narrative synthesis was themed by setting. RESULTS: 22 reports relating to 18 studies were identified (methodological quality was high in three, medium in five, and low in 10); all the studies were outbreak investigations. Long distance airborne transmission was likely to have occurred for some or all transmission events in 16 studies and was unclear in two studies (GRADE: very low certainty). In the 16 studies, one or more factors plausibly increased the likelihood of long distance airborne transmission, particularly insufficient air replacement (very low certainty), directional air flow (very low certainty), and activities associated with increased emission of aerosols, such as singing or speaking loudly (very low certainty). In 13 studies, the primary cases were reported as being asymptomatic, presymptomatic, or around symptom onset at the time of transmission. Although some of the included studies were well conducted outbreak investigations, they remain at risk of bias owing to study design and do not always provide the level of detail needed to fully assess transmission routes. CONCLUSION: This rapid systematic review found evidence suggesting that long distance airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 might occur in indoor settings such as restaurants, workplaces, and venues for choirs, and identified factors such as insufficient air replacement that probably contributed to transmission. These results strengthen the need for mitigation measures in indoor settings, particularly the use of adequate ventilation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021236762

Cross-sectional study evaluating data quality of the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS) prostate cancer registry data using the Cluster randomised trial of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP)

ObjectivesTo compare the completeness and agreement of prostate cancer data recorded by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS) with research-level data specifically abstracted from medical records from the Cluster randomised triAl of prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing for Prostate cancer (CAP) trial.DesignCross-sectional comparison study.ParticipantsWe included 1356 men from the CAP trial cohort who were linked to the NCRAS registry.Primary and secondary outcome measuresCompleteness of prostate cancer data in NCRAS and CAP and agreement for tumour, node, metastases (TNM) stage (T1/T2; T3; T4/N1/M1) and Gleason grade (4–6; 7; 8–10), measured by differences in proportions and Cohen’s kappa statistic. Data were also stratified by year and pre-2010 versus post-2010, when NCRAS reporting standards changed.ResultsCompared with CAP, completeness was lower in NCRAS for Gleason grade (41.2% vs 76.7%, difference 35.5, 95% CI 32.1 to 39.0) and TNM stage (29.9% vs 67.6%, difference 37.6, 95% CI 34.1 to 41.1). NCRAS completeness for Gleason grade (pre-2010 vs post-2010 31.69% vs 64%; difference 32.31, 95% CI 26.76 to 37.87) and TNM stage (19.31% vs 55.50%; difference 36.19, 95% CI 30.72 to 41.67) improved over time. Agreement for Gleason grade was high (Cohen’s kappa, κ=0.90, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93), but lower for TNM stage (κ=0.41, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.51) overall. There was a trend towards improved agreement on Gleason grade, but not TNM stage, when comparing pre-2010 and post-2010 data.ConclusionNCRAS case identification was very high; however, data on prostate cancer grade was less complete than CAP, and agreement for TNM stage was modest. Although the completeness of NCRAS data has improved since 2010, the higher completeness rate in CAP demonstrates that gains could potentially be achieved in routine registry data. This study’s findings highlight a need for improved recording of stage and grade data in the source medical records.</jats:sec