Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33121906›Full record

ReviewJournal of infection and public health2020

Comparative epidemiology between the 2009 H1N1 influenza and COVID-19 pandemics.

Vivaldo Gomes da Costa, Marielena Vogel Saivish, Dhullya Eduarda Resende Santos, Rebeca Francielle de Lima Silva, Marcos Lázaro Moreli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of infection and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Vivaldo Gomes da CostaDepartment of Cellular Biology, University of Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil; Special Academic Unit of Health Sciences, Federal University of Jataí, Jataí, GO, Brazil. Electronic address: vivbiom@gmail.com.
Marielena Vogel SaivishSpecial Academic Unit of Health Sciences, Federal University of Jataí, Jataí, GO, Brazil.
Dhullya Eduarda Resende SantosSpecial Academic Unit of Health Sciences, Federal University of Jataí, Jataí, GO, Brazil.
Rebeca Francielle de Lima SilvaSpecial Academic Unit of Health Sciences, Federal University of Jataí, Jataí, GO, Brazil.
Marcos Lázaro MoreliSpecial Academic Unit of Health Sciences, Federal University of Jataí, Jataí, GO, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a short time, humanity has experienced two pandemics: the influenza A virus pandemic (pH1N1) in 2009 and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020. Therefore, it is likely that the general population will erroneously seek to compare the two pandemics and adopt similar attitudes in facing them. However, the two pandemics have their intrinsic characteristics that distinguish them considerably; for example, the virulence of the infectious agents and the availability of treatment and vaccine. Consequently, given this knowledge gap between the pH1N1 and COVID-19 pandemics, we conducted this review to clarify and summarize, above all, the epidemiological historical aspects of these two viruses of great importance to global public health.

Indexed as

Influenza A Virus, H1N1 SubtypeSARS-CoV-2COVID-19EpidemicsGlobal HealthHumansInfluenza, Human2009 H1N1 pandemicCOVID-19 pandemicEmerging virusesGlobal epidemicsSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID33121906
PMCPMC7553061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.