Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33246350›Full record

ArticleDeutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2021

[The early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Bavaria, Germany].

Matthias Wjst

Erratum issuedAbstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Matthias WjstInstitut für Lungenbiologie (iLBD), Helmholtz-Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health (GmbH), München-Neuherberg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe effect of non pharmacological interventions (NPIs) during an epidemic disease outbreak is well accepted dating back to historical events. NPIs involve numerous measurements like hygiene rules or contact restriction that are applied during given situations, while so far only limited quantitative data exist to rate the overall effectiveness.

methodsUsing the official counts of Robert Koch Institute in Berlin/Germany, press reports and Twitter messages, the early phase of the current COVID-19/Sars-CoV2 in Bavaria is being reconstructed.

resultsThe first cases have been observed in Munich by the end of January 2020. While the initial outbreak could be sufficiently covered using isolation and quarantine measurements, the consecutive early spreading falls into three phases, starting with winter school holidays at the end of February, a number of beer festivals in the following week, and general elections on March, 15. The disaster plan on March, 16 indicates the end of the early phase. Using the official case counts, a rather coherent picture evolves although representative epidemiological studies are still missing. The epidemic started with a few cases during the winter holidays, increased exponentially afterwards including significant more cases by beer festivals and another significant excess of cases following the election that occurred in Bavaria only. Compared to other German countries, Bavaria reached the highest prevalence which could not be reversed by even the most restrictive containment measurements.

conclusionTo be effective, NPIs need to applied early, if possible even before the beginning of the exponential phase.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsGermanyHistory, 21st CenturyHolidaysHumansPhysical DistancingQuarantineSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID33246350
PMCPMC7813588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.