Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33400268›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical investigation2021

Assessing mandatory stay-at-home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID-19.

Eran Bendavid, Christopher Oh, Jay Bhattacharya, John P A Ioannidis

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical investigation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

88 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Effectiveness of social distancing measures and lockdowns for reducing transmission of COVID-19 in non-healthcare, community-based settings.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Policy evaluation during a pandemic.Journal of econometrics · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Eran BendavidDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8364-4711
Christopher OhDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Jay BhattacharyaCenter for Health Policy and the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3867-3174
John P A IoannidisDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3118-6859

Funding

Stanford COVID-19 Seroprevalence Studies Fund
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsThe most restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for controlling the spread of COVID-19 are mandatory stay-at-home and business closures. Given the consequences of these policies, it is important to assess their effects. We evaluate the effects on epidemic case growth of more restrictive NPIs (mrNPIs), above and beyond those of less-restrictive NPIs (lrNPIs).

methodsWe first estimate COVID-19 case growth in relation to any NPI implementation in subnational regions of 10 countries: England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, South Korea, Sweden and the United States. Using first-difference models with fixed effects, we isolate the effects of mrNPIs by subtracting the combined effects of lrNPIs and epidemic dynamics from all NPIs. We use case growth in Sweden and South Korea, 2 countries that did not implement mandatory stay-at-home and business closures, as comparison countries for the other 8 countries (16 total comparisons).

resultsImplementing any NPIs was associated with significant reductions in case growth in 9 out of 10 study countries, including South Korea and Sweden that implemented only lrNPIs (Spain had a nonsignificant effect). After subtracting the epidemic and lrNPI effects, we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country. In France, for example, the effect of mrNPIs was +7% (95% CI: -5%-19%) when compared with Sweden and + 13% (-12%-38%) when compared with South Korea (positive means pro-contagion). The 95% confidence intervals excluded 30% declines in all 16 comparisons and 15% declines in 11/16 comparisons.

conclusionsWhile small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less-restrictive interventions.

Indexed as

CommercePublic PolicyQuarantineCommunicable Disease ControlCOVID-19EnglandFranceGermanyHumansIranItalyNetherlandsRepublic of KoreaSARS-CoV-2SpainSweden

Identifiers

PMID33400268
PMCPMC7883103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.