ArticleNeurological research and practice2021
Neuroradiological emergency consultations during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Neurological research and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeasures taking aim at minimizing the risk of coronavirus transmission and fear of infection may affect decisions to seek care for other medical emergency conditions. The purpose of this analysis was to analyze intermediate-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on neuroradiological emergency consultations (NECs).
methodsWe conducted an ambispective study on NEC requests to a university hospital from a teleradiological network covering 13 hospitals in Germany. Weekly NEC rates for prepandemic calendar weeks (CW) 01/2019-09/2020 were compared with rates during first COVID-19 wave (CW 10-20/2020), first loosening of restrictions (CW 21-29/2020), intensified COVID-19 testing (CW 30-39/2020) and second COVID-19 wave (CW 40-53/2020), and contrasted with COVID-19 incidence in Germany.
resultsA total of n = 10 810 NECs were analyzed. Prepandemic NEC rates were stable over time (median: 103, IQR: 97-115). Upon the first COVID-19 wave in Germany, NEC rates declined sharply (median: 86, IQR: 69-92; p < 0.001) but recovered within weeks. Changes in NEC rates after first loosening of restrictions (median: 109, IQR: 98-127; p = 0. 188), a phase of intensified testing (median: 111, IQR: 101-114; p = 0.434) and as of a second COVID-19 wave (median: 102, IQR: 94-112; p = 0. 462) were not significant. Likewise, patient age and gender distribution remained constant.
conclusionUpon the first pandemic COVID-19 wave in Germany, NEC rates declined but recovered within weeks. It is unknown whether this recovery reflects improved medical care and test capabilities or an adjustment of the patients' behaviour.
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.