Observational studyJournal of emergency nursing2021
A Retrospective Analysis of the Impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic on Health Care Workers in a Tertiary Hospital in Turkey.
Observational study in Journal of emergency nursing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Repurposed drug studies on the primary prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the pandemic: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open respiratory research · 2023Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSeveral vaccines have been developed and approved for use against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2; however, the use of personal protective equipment remains important owing to the lack of effective specific treatment and whole community immunity. Hydroxychloroquine sulfate was a treatment option in the early days of the pandemic; however, it was subsequently removed owing to a lack of evidence as an effective treatment. We aimed to evaluate the testing and infection characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 among health care personnel and determine the effectiveness of prophylactic hydroxychloroquine sulfate use to prevent transmission.
methodsThis retrospective observational study was conducted between May 1 and September 30, 2020. The health care personnel included in the study were physicians, nurses, and paraprofessional support personnel. The health records of health care personnel who had been tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 using polymerase chain reaction were retrospectively analyzed.
resultsIn total, 508 health care personnel were included in the study. A total of 152 (29.9%) health care personnel were diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019. The positive polymerase chain reaction rate was 80.3% (n = 122). A comparison of infected and uninfected health care personnel showed a difference in age and occupation and no difference in sex, working area, and prophylactic hydroxychloroquine sulfate use. DISCUSSION: Protective measures in low-risk areas of our hospital require improvements. All health care personnel should be trained on personal protective equipment use. There was no evidence to support the effectiveness of prophylactic hydroxychloroquine sulfate against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 transmission.
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.