ArticleInfection & chemotherapy2019
Investigation of a Mumps Outbreak in a Dental Clinic at a University Hospital.
Article in Infection & chemotherapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Korean Society of Infectious Diseases recommends non-mandatory vaccination of newly employed healthcare workers (HCWs) with 2 measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine doses. Here, we aimed to investigate the seroprevalence of mumps among HCWs exposed to index patients with mumps and the efficacy of MMR vaccination as postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) when a mumps outbreak was encountered among HCWs in a tertiary university hospital in Korea. MATERIALS AND
methodsFour HCWs were diagnosed with mumps over a 4-day period in January 2016. Three were working at a dental clinic and one visited the clinic on the day of symptoms onset of the first patient. We investigated all HCWs who either worked in that dental clinic, visited the clinic, or being within 1.5 meter of the patients with mumps without wearing surgical masks. Seventy HCWs were exposed to 4 HCWs with mumps. We interviewed all the exposed HCWs to investigate mumps infection and MMR vaccination history; they were all tested for mumps IgG.
resultsOf the 70 exposed HCWs, 56 (80%) were females; the median age was 34 years (range 21-59 years) and 3 had a history of mumps infection. The vaccination status verification of mumps among the HCWs was unavailable. As for serologic testing, 54 (77.1%) were seropositive. Seropositivity rate for the mumps virus in males was significantly lower than that in females (50.0%
conclusionOf the exposed HCWs, 77.1% were mumps-seropositive. Seropositive rates differed according to factors such as age and sex. Eligible HCWs received a MMR vaccine as PEP and no additional mumps cases occurred during the incubation period. It was useful in our infection control activities during the mumps outbreak.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.