Letter to the editor: Wide indication for SARS-CoV-2-testing allowed identification of international risk areas during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Nationally representative results on SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and testing in Germany at the end of 2020.Scientific reports · 2022
   Article
2. [The different periods of COVID-19 in Germany: a descriptive analysis from January 2020 to February 2021].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2021
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Rapid response infrastructure for pandemic preparedness in a tertiary care hospital: lessons learned from the COVID-19 outbreak in Cologne, Germany, February to March 2020.2020

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as