ArticleScientific reports2021
Comparison of COVID-19 outcomes among shielded and non-shielded populations.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions as implemented in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Lessons from past pandemics: a systematic review of evidence-based, cost-effective interventions to suppress COVID-19.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- The impact of shielding on COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths during 2020 in England: a transmission modelling evaluation using the OpenSAFELY platform.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Features influencing the health and economic impact of preventing COVID-19 in immunocompromised individuals.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Impact of arteriovenous fistula formation on trajectory of kidney function decline: a target trial emulation.Clinical kidney journal · 2024Article
- Non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce COVID-19 transmission in the UK: a rapid mapping review and interactive evidence gap map.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2024Review
- The cost of implementing the COVID-19 shielding policy in Wales.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Rationale for the shielding policy for clinically vulnerable people in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2023Review
- Article
- Evaluation of the shielding initiative in Wales (EVITE Immunity): protocol for a quasiexperimental study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Risk of severe COVID-19 infection in persons with diabetes during the first and second waves in Denmark: A nationwide cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
- Outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with common variable immunodeficiency and a matched control group: A Danish nationwide cohort study.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
- Factors associated with excess all-cause mortality in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: A time series analysis using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.PLoS medicine · 2022Article
- Risk of COVID-19 in shielded and nursing care home patients: a cohort study in general practice.BJGP open · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many western countries used shielding (extended self-isolation) of people presumed to be at high-risk from COVID-19 to protect them and reduce healthcare demand. To investigate the effectiveness of this strategy, we linked family practitioner, prescribing, laboratory, hospital and death records and compared COVID-19 outcomes among shielded and non-shielded individuals in the West of Scotland. Of the 1.3 million population, 27,747 (2.03%) were advised to shield, and 353,085 (26.85%) were classified a priori as moderate risk. COVID-19 testing was more common in the shielded (7.01%) and moderate risk (2.03%) groups, than low risk (0.73%). Referent to low-risk, the shielded group had higher confirmed infections (RR 8.45, 95% 7.44-9.59), case-fatality (RR 5.62, 95% CI 4.47-7.07) and population mortality (RR 57.56, 95% 44.06-75.19). The moderate-risk had intermediate confirmed infections (RR 4.11, 95% CI 3.82-4.42) and population mortality (RR 25.41, 95% CI 20.36-31.71) but, due to their higher prevalence, made the largest contribution to deaths (PAF 75.30%). Age ≥ 70 years accounted for 49.55% of deaths. In conclusion, in spite of the shielding strategy, high risk individuals were at increased risk of death. Furthermore, to be effective as a population strategy, shielding criteria would have needed to be widely expanded to include other criteria, such as the elderly.
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.