ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2021
[Assessment of the risk of infection from SARS-CoV-2 for healthcare workers-findings from practice].
Review in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Factors associated with the risk of hospitalization and death related to SARS-CoV-2 infection.]Revista espanola de salud publica · 2023Article
- [Occupationally acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections among healthcare personnel in Frankfurt am Main from March to August 2020].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2022Article
- Healthcare Workers' Perceptions and Medically Approved COVID-19 Infection Risk: Understanding the Mental Health Dimension of the Pandemic. A German Hospital Case Study.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- The German Translation of the Stress and Anxiety to Viral Epidemics-9 (SAVE-9) Scale: Results from Healthcare Workers during the Second Wave of COVID-19.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
SARS-CoV‑2 has rapidly spread over the world in a pandemic manner causing an infection of predominantly pulmonary manifestation named the COVID-19 disease. Currently, there is neither an effective vaccination nor a specific therapy available. At least two vaccines will be available at the time of publication. In the international press, the risk for medical personnel of SARS-CoV‑2 is rated as high. The Robert Koch Institute, Germany's leading epidemiological authority, regards the risk of infection for the general population to be high. The aim of this article is to discuss and reassess the risk of infection and disease for healthcare workers based on practical experience, national regulations and guidelines, and the number of infections. Both unprotected healthcare workers and healthcare workers equipped with personal protective equipment (PPE) are considered. A corresponding risk matrix is created.The risk of infection with SAR-CoV‑2 for healthcare workers is comparable to the general population and rated as high. Proper use of PPE reduces this risk to medium. PPE consists of liquid-proof gowns, gloves, and filtering face pieces (FFP; FFP 2 as a standard, FFP 3 for aerosol-releasing interventions), a hair cover, and protective goggles. Improper use of PPE, inadequate hygienic measures, and long working shifts increase the risk of infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.