Travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review

• Published in: Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2020-10, Vol.10, p.CD013717-CD013717
• Main Authors: Burns, Jacob, Movsisyan, Ani, Stratil, Jan M, Coenen, Michaela, Emmert-Fees, Karl Mf, Geffert, Karin, Hoffmann, Sabine, Horstick, Olaf, Laxy, Michael, Pfadenhauer, Lisa M, von Philipsborn, Peter, Sell, Kerstin, Voss, Stephan, Rehfuess, Eva
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Communicable Diseases, Imported - epidemiology; Communicable Diseases, Imported - prevention & control; Coronavirus Infections - epidemiology; Coronavirus Infections - prevention & control; COVID-19 - epidemiology; COVID-19 - prevention & control; Humans; Models, Theoretical; Observational Studies as Topic; Pandemics - prevention & control; Quarantine; SARS-CoV-2; Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome - epidemiology; Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome - prevention & control; Travel-Related Illness
• ISSN: 1469-493X
• DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013717

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 ecologic