Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33344872›Full record

ArticleGeoHealth2020

The Coupled Impact of Emergency Responses and Population Flows on the COVID-19 Pandemic in China.

Changxiu Cheng, Tianyuan Zhang, Changqing Song, Shi Shen, Yifan Jiang, Xiangxue Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GeoHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors.

Changxiu ChengState Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology Beijing Normal University Beijing China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2988-8915
Tianyuan ZhangState Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology Beijing Normal University Beijing China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2337-6209
Changqing SongState Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology Beijing Normal University Beijing China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8449-4911
Shi ShenState Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology Beijing Normal University Beijing China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9126-229X
Yifan JiangState Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology Beijing Normal University Beijing China.
Xiangxue ZhangState Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology Beijing Normal University Beijing China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread around the world and requires effective control measures. Like the human-to-human transmission of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the distribution of COVID-19 was driven by population flow and required emergency response measures to slow down its spread and degrade the epidemic risk. The local epidemic risk of COVID-19 is a combination of emergency response measures and population flow. Because of the spatial heterogeneity, the different impacts of coupled emergency responses and population flow on the COVID-19 epidemic during the outbreak period and a control period are unclear. We examined and compared the impact of emergency response measures and population flow on China's epidemic risk after the Wuhan lockdown during the outbreak period and a control period. We found that the population flow out of Wuhan had a long-term impact on the epidemic's spread. In the outbreak period, a large population flow out of Wuhan led to nationwide migration mobility, which directly increased the epidemic in each province. Meanwhile, quick emergency responses mitigated the spread. Although low population flow to provinces far from Hubei delayed the outbreak in those provinces, relatively delayed emergency response increased the epidemic in the control period. Consequently, due to the strong transmission ability of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, no region correctly estimated the epidemic, and the relaxed emergency response raised the epidemic risks in the context of the outbreak.

Indexed as

COVID‐19GWRinfectious diseasespatial heterogeneity

Identifiers

PMID33344872
PMCPMC7735864

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.