Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33119721›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Assessing COVID-19 risk, vulnerability and infection prevalence in communities.

Amin Kiaghadi, Hanadi S Rifai, Winston Liaw

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Assessment of community vulnerability during the COVID-19 pandemic: Hong Kong as a case study.International journal of applied earth observation and geoinformation : ITC journal · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Global and Temporal COVID-19 Risk Evaluation.Frontiers in public health · 2020
    Article
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.

Amin KiaghadiCivil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9706-6222
Hanadi S RifaiCivil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7321-2448
Winston LiawHealth Systems and Population Health Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Houston, Houston, TX, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7865-1685
University of Houston · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe spread of coronavirus in the United States with nearly five and half million confirmed cases and over 170,000 deaths has strained public health and health care systems. While many have focused on clinical outcomes, less attention has been paid to vulnerability and risk of infection. In this study, we developed a planning tool that examines factors that affect vulnerability to COVID-19.

methodsAcross 46 variables, we defined five broad categories: 1) access to medical services, 2) underlying health conditions, 3) environmental exposures, 4) vulnerability to natural disasters, and 5) sociodemographic, behavioral, and lifestyle factors. The developed tool was validated by comparing the estimated overall vulnerability with the real-time reported normalized confirmed cases of COVID-19. ANALYSIS: A principal component analysis was undertaken to reduce the dimensions. In order to identify vulnerable census tracts, we conducted rank-based exceedance and K-means cluster analyses.

resultsAll of the 5 vulnerability categories, as well as the overall vulnerability, showed significant (P-values <<0.05) and relatively strong correlations (0.203<ρ<0.57) with the normalized confirmed cases of COVID-19 at the census tract level. Our study showed a total of 722,357 (~17% of the County population) people, including 171,403 between the ages of 45-65 (~4% of County's population), and 76,719 seniors (~2% of County population), are at a higher risk based on the aforementioned categories. The exceedance and K-means cluster analysis demonstrated that census tracts in the northeastern, eastern, southeastern and northwestern regions of the County are at highest risk.

conclusionPolicymakers can use this planning tool to identify neighborhoods at high risk for becoming hot spots; efficiently match community resources with needs, and ensure that the most vulnerable have access to equipment, personnel, and medical interventions.

Indexed as

Risk AssessmentVulnerable PopulationsAdultAgedBetacoronavirusCluster AnalysisCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19HumansMiddle AgedPandemicsPneumonia, ViralPrevalencePublic HealthResidence CharacteristicsSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID33119721
PMCPMC7595430
OpenAlexW3097931167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.