Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32075820›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2020

Impact of isolation on hospitalised patients who are infectious: systematic review with meta-analysis.

Edward Purssell, Dinah Gould, Jane Chudleigh

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04351789 (Impact of a Minimal Psychoeducational Intervention Versus Standard of Care on Anxiety Among Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in Denmark), which is not on this map. Cited by 79 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
27.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04351789 naunknown statusnot on this map

Impact of a Minimal Psychoeducational Intervention Versus Standard of Care on Anxiety Among Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in Denmark: a Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorCopenhagen University Hospital, HvidovreRan2020 to 2023Enrolled66ConditionsCOVID-19, Mental Health, Psychoeducation, AnxietyArmsPsychoeducational intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

79 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 180 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Open forum infectious diseases · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Edward PurssellSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK Edward.Purssell@city.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3748-0864
Dinah GouldSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1506-9532
Jane ChudleighSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7334-8708
City, University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo systematically review the literature exploring the impact of isolation on hospitalised patients who are infectious: psychological and non-psychological outcomes.

designSystematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Embase, Medline and PsycINFO were searched from inception until December 2018. Reference lists and Google Scholar were also handsearched.

resultsTwenty-six papers published from database inception to December 2018 were reviewed. A wide range of psychological and non-psychological outcomes were reported. There was a marked trend for isolated patients to exhibit higher levels of depression, the pooled standardised mean difference being 1.28 (95% CI 0.47 to 2.09) and anxiety 1.45 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.34), although both had high levels of heterogeneity, and worse outcomes for a range of care-related factors but with significant variation.

conclusionThe review indicates that isolation to contain the risk of infection has negative consequences for segregated patients. Although strength of the evidence is weak, comprising primarily single-centre convenience samples, consistency of the effects may strengthen this conclusion. More research needs to be undertaken to examine this relationship and develop and test interventions to reduce the negative effects of isolation.

Indexed as

HospitalizationAnxietyCross InfectionDepressionHumansInfection ControlInfectionsPatient CareSocial IsolationStress, Psychologicalanxiety disordersinfection controlquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID32075820
PMCPMC7044903
OpenAlexW3005396998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.