Pang 2003.

Methods	Ecological study describing and analysing the effects of public health measures on the SARS epidemic between 5 March and 29 May 2003 in Beijing, China. Data were collected from centralised notification and close contact databases
Participants	2521 probable SARS cases mostly hospitalised aged around 33 (407 or 16% were HCWs) and 192 of these who died out of a total population of 13.6 million people. The peak took place on 25 April with 173 hospitalised cases
Interventions	SARS was made notifiable on 9 April and contact tracing commenced a day later. On 18 April 62,363 of the estimated 85,000 Beijing HCWs received training in the management of SARS cases and were issued gowns, gloves, masks. By 17 April, 123 fever clinics were opened, however these were contiguous to hospitals and it is thought that some transmission occurred By 21 April quarantine of close contacts was underway (these were only allowed to leave quarantine in exceptional circumstances and only wearing a mask) and fever check at airports were begun the day after. By 24 April all schools and universities closed. Two days later public meeting places (bars, libraries etc) were closed. From 27 April all SARS cases were placed in designated hospital wards and by 8 May SARS cases were only sent to designated hospitals. By 1 May a SARS hospital of 1000 beds built in 1 week was opened and received only SARS cases (40% of total cases). The last cases were registered on 26 May. The highest attack rate (14.5%) of quarantined people was those of spouses of SARS cases
Outcomes	Laboratory: laboratory testing for the presence of SARS‐CoV was not part of the case definition Effectiveness: probable SARS cases (close contact of a SARS sufferer with signs and symptoms of febrile respiratory disease and chest X‐ray changes, or person visiting of residing in an area with recent SARS activity and with signs and symptoms of febrile respiratory disease and chest X‐ray changes and lack of response to antibiotics or person visiting of residing in an area with recent SARS activity and with signs and symptoms of febrile respiratory disease and chest X‐ray changes and normal or decreased WBC count) Safety: N/A
Notes	Risk of bias: low Notes: the authors conclude that in virtue of the shape of the epidemic curve it is likely that the combination of measures taken before the 25 April helped contain the spread of SARS. Although there may be alternative explanations this appears to be the most likely explanation of the facts. Hospitals were seen early on as sources of transmission of the SARS Co‐V. The authors seem to doubt the direct effectiveness of entry port (for example, airports, stations, etc.) checks (12 cases identified out of over 13 million people screened). They think screening was more useful to keep away sick people
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	N/A
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	N/A
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	N/A
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	N/A
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	N/A