ArticleHNO2021
Follow-up of a national web-based survey on the SARS-CoV-2 infectious state of otorhinolaryngologists in Germany.
Article in HNO, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe SARS-CoV‑2 pandemic has affected the health and practice of otorhinolaryngologists (ORLs) for over 1 year. Follow-up data of a national survey with German ORLs were evaluated regarding differences between the two waves of the pandemic.
methodsAs in the initial survey, German ORLs were addressed via e‑mail through the German Society of ORL, Head and Neck Surgery and the German ENT Association. All ORLs afflicted with SARS-CoV‑2 were invited to participate in a web-based survey. General data on infections and concomitant parameters were evaluated.
resultsSince the start of the pandemic, 129 ORLs reported testing positive for SARS-CoV‑2 in Germany. The ORLs infected during the first wave had a relative risk (RR) of 4.07 (95% CI: 3.20; 5.19) of contracting SARS-CoV‑2. During the second wave, the RR decreased to 0.35 (95% CI: 0.28; 0.45). The availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) increased from the first to the second wave along with an increased perception of protection in the professional environment. The source of infection shifted from infections via medical staff during the first wave to patients and household exposure during the second wave. Regular medical practice was resumed by clinicians and general practitioners in the second wave. Nevertheless, a proportionally lower infection rate was observed compared with the German population as a whole.
conclusionThe data reflect a unique long-term survey of ORLs during the pandemic. Differences in the source of infection were seen between the first and second wave, confirming the need for appropriate PPE for medical professionals working in high-risk environments. Further strategies to reduce the risk of infection include consistent testing for SARS-CoV‑2 in healthcare professionals, patients, and the general public as well as vaccination of high-risk medical groups.
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.