ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2020
Lockdown measures and relative changes in the age-specific incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in Spain.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2020. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe first months of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Spain resulted in high incidence and mortality. A national sero-epidemiological survey suggests higher cumulative incidence of infection in older individuals than in younger individuals. However, little is known about the epidemic dynamics in different age groups, including the relative effect of the lockdown measures introduced on March 15, and strengthened on March 30 to April 14, 2020 when only essential workers continued to work.
methodsWe used data from the National Epidemiological Surveillance Network (RENAVE in Spanish) on the daily number of reported COVID-19 cases (by date of symptom onset) in eleven 5-year age groups: 15-19y through 65-69y. For each age group g, we computed the proportion E(g) of individuals in age group g among all reported cases aged 15-69y during the pre-lockdown period (March 1-10, 2020) and the corresponding proportion L(g) during two lockdown periods (March 25-April 3 and April 8-17, 2020). For each lockdown period, we computed the proportion ratios PR(g)= L(g)/E(g). For each pair of age groups g1,g2, PR(g1)>PR(g2) implies a relative increase in the incidence of detected SARS-CoV-2 infection in the age group g1 compared with g2 for the later vs. early period.
resultsFor the first lockdown period, the highest PR values were in age groups 50-54y (PR=1.21; 95% CI: 1.12,1.30) and 55-59y (PR=1.19; 1.11,1.27). For the second lockdown period, the highest PR values were in age groups 15-19y (PR=1.26; 0.95,1.68) and 50-54y (PR=1.20; 1.09,1.31).
conclusionsOur results suggest that different outbreak control measures led to different changes in the relative incidence by age group. During the first lockdown period, when non-essential work was allowed, individuals aged 40-64y, particularly those aged 50-59y presented with higher COVID-19 relative incidence compared to pre-lockdown period, while younger adults/older adolescents (together with persons aged 50-59y) had increased relative incidence during the later, strengthened lockdown. The role of different age groups during the epidemic should be considered when implementing future mitigation efforts.
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.