Cited by 269COVID-19 epidemiological studiesCOVID-19 Prevention and ImpactCOVID-19 impact on air quality

Systematic review of empirical studies comparing the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19

Open access
Mendez-Brito, Alba, El Bcheraoui, Charbel, Pozo-Martin, Francisco·2021·Journal of Infection

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have been more and less effective in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of published and unpublished empirical studies, either observational or interventional, analysing the comparative effectiveness of NPIs against the COVID-19 pandemic. We searched Embase/Medline and medRxiv to identify the relevant literature. RESULTS: We identified 34 studies. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, school closing was the most effective NPI, followed by workplace closing, business and venue closing and public event bans. Public information campaigns and mask wearing requirements were also effective in controlling the pandemic while being less disruptive for the population than other NPIs. There was no evidence on the effectiveness of public transport closure, testing and contact tracing strategies and quarantining or isolation of individuals. Early implementation was associated with a higher effectiveness in reducing COVID-19 cases and deaths, while general stringency of the NPIs was not. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, we found that school closing, followed by workplace closing, business and venue closing and public event bans were the most effective NPIs in controlling the spread of COVID-19. An early response and a combination of specific social distancing measures are effective at reducing COVID-19 cases and deaths. Continuous monitoring of NPIs effectiveness is needed in order to adapt decision making.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jinf.2021.06.018

Cites

112 of 112 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Implementing public health and social measures early-such as closing businesses and venues, banning public events, running public information campaigns, and requiring masks-keeps cumulative cases and deaths lower than delaying them.

    “Early implementation of public health and social measures—including closing businesses and venues, banning public events, launching public information campaigns, and requiring the use of face masks—is more effective at keeping cumulative cases and deaths low than implementation at a later stage.27”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [61]Should Schools Reopen? Interim Findings and Concerns Draft document for public discussion Indep Sci Advisory Group Emerg (SAGE) 2020 22 May 2020
  2. [73]J. Bailey Is it safe to reopen schools? An extensive review of the research. Available at: https://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/3-12_is_it_safe_to_reopen_schools_an_extensive_review_of_the_research_1.pdf. 2021.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mendez-Brito, A., El Bcheraoui, C., & Pozo-Martin, F.
Affiliations
Robert Koch Institute (DE)
Corresponding author
Pozo-Martin, Francisco
Venue
Journal of Infection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-09
Volume
83
Issue
3
Pages
281-293
ISSN
0163-4453 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3175958360
Cited by
269
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 21
FWCI
5.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Infection (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Publication server of the Robert Koch Institute (Robert Kock Institute) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › COVID-19 Prevention and Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › COVID-19 impact on air quality
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, non-pharmaceutical interventions, school closures, workplace closures, information campaigns, social distancing, early intervention
MeSH terms
Physical Distancing, COVID-19, Humans, Masks, Quarantine, Contact Tracing, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review