Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33225945›Full record

Observational studyBMC public health2020

Evaluating the impact of stay-at-home orders on the time to reach the peak burden of Covid-19 cases and deaths: does timing matter?

Alexandra Medline, Lamar Hayes, Katia Valdez, Ami Hayashi, Farnoosh Vahedi, Will Capell, Jake Sonnenberg, Zoe Glick, Jeffrey D Klausner

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Total Mortality in Poland.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    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

9 authors.

Alexandra MedlineEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. alexandra.medline@emory.edu.
Lamar HayesDavid Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Katia ValdezFielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Ami HayashiDavid Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Farnoosh VahediDavid Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Will CapellDavid Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Jake SonnenbergStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Zoe GlickUniversity of California, Berkeley, California, USA.
Jeffrey D KlausnerDavid Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe economic, psychological, and social impact of pandemics and social distancing measures prompt the urgent need to determine the efficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), especially those considered most stringent such as stay-at-home and self-isolation mandates. This study focuses specifically on the impact of stay-at-home orders, both nationally and internationally, on the control of COVID-19.

methodsWe conducted an observational analysis from April to May 2020 and included both countries and US states with known stay-at-home orders. Our primary exposure was the time between the date of the first reported case of COVID-19 to an implemented stay-at-home mandate for each region. Our primary outcomes were the time from the first reported case to the highest number of daily cases and daily deaths. We conducted linear regression analyses, controlling for the case rate of the outbreak in each respective region.

resultsFor countries and US states, a longer period of time between the first reported case and stay-at-home mandates was associated with a longer time to reach both the peak daily case and death counts. The largest effect was among regions classified as the latest 10% to implement a mandate, which in the US, predicted an extra 35.3 days (95% CI: 18.2, 52.5) to the peak number of cases, and 38.3 days (95% CI: 23.6, 53.0) to the peak number of deaths.

conclusionsOur study supports the association between the timing of stay-at-home orders and the time to peak case and death counts for both countries and US states. Regions in which mandates were implemented late experienced a prolonged duration to reaching both peak daily case and death counts.

Indexed as

Coronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Global HealthHumansPandemicsPneumonia, ViralQuarantineTime FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID33225945
PMCPMC7680980

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.