Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33472783›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2021

COVID-19 and healthcare workers: a rapid systematic review into risks and preventive measures.

J Valérie Gross, Judith Mohren, Thomas C Erren

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06158724 (COVID-19 Personal Protective Equipment for Vaccinated Health Workers and Convalescents), which is not on this map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

NCT06158724 withdrawnnot on this map

COVID-19 Personal Protective Equipment for Vaccinated Health Workers and Convalescents

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity Medical Centre LjubljanaRan2021 to 2021Enrolled0ConditionsCovid19ArmsPersonal Protective Equipment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  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

3 authors.

J Valérie GrossInstitute and Policlinic for Occupational Medicine, Environmental Medicine and Prevention Research, University Hospital Cologne, Koln, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany juliane.gross@uk-koeln.de.ORCID 0000-0002-3144-7353
Judith MohrenInstitute and Policlinic for Occupational Medicine, Environmental Medicine and Prevention Research, University Hospital Cologne, Koln, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany.
Thomas C ErrenInstitute and Policlinic for Occupational Medicine, Environmental Medicine and Prevention Research, University Hospital Cologne, Koln, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic is demanding for occupational medicine and for public health. As healthcare workers (HCWs) fight impacts of SARS-CoV-2 on front lines, we must create safe work environments through comprehensive risk assessments, evaluation and effective implementation of counter-measures. We ask: 'What does current literature report on health risks at workplaces regarding COVID-19?' and 'What do current studies report on the effectiveness of enacted preventative recommendations?'

methodsAs a snapshot of early HCW research, on 26 April 2020, we conducted a rapid systematic literature search in three databases (PubMed, Web of Science and PsycInfo) for COVID-19-related health outcomes and preventive measures in healthcare-associated workplaces.

results27 studies were identified as relevant for exploring the risk of infection, 11 studies evaluated preventive measures. The studies described that SARS-CoV-2 impacts significantly on HCW's health and well-being, not only through infections (n=6), but also from a mental health perspective (n=16). 4 studies reported indirect risks such as skin injuries, one study described headaches to result from the use of personal protective equipment. Few studies provided information on the effectiveness of prevention strategies. Overall, most studies on health risks as well as on the effectiveness of preventive measures were of a moderate-to-low quality; this was mainly due to limitations in study design, imprecise exposure and outcome assessments.

conclusionsDue to widespread exposure of HCW to SARS-CoV-2, workplaces in healthcare must be as safe as possible. Information from HCW can provide valuable insights into how infections spread, into direct and indirect health effects and into how effectively counter-measures mitigate adverse health outcomes. However, available research disallows to judge which counter-measure(s) of a current 'mix' should be prioritised for HCW. To arrive at evidence-based cost-effective prevention strategies, more well-conceived studies on the effectiveness of counter-measures are needed.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCommunicable Disease ControlCOVID-19HumansPublic HealthRiskWorkplaceepidemiologyoccupational & industrial medicinepublic health

Identifiers

PMID33472783
PMCPMC7818819

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.