ReviewBMJ open2021
Development and presentation of an objective risk stratification tool for healthcare workers when dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: risk modelling based on hospitalisation and mortality statistics compared with epidemiological data.
Review in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Are Corticosteroid Injections Associated With Secondary Adrenal Insufficiency in Adults With Musculoskeletal Pain? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2022Pooled it
- Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Hospital-Based Healthcare Workers in Thailand at Myanmar Border, 2022.COVID · 2025Article
- Burnout in healthcare - the Emperor's New Clothes.Przeglad gastroenterologiczny · 2023Review
- Coronavirus disease and home recovery: a Singapore perspective.Western Pacific surveillance and response journal : WPSAR · 2023Review
- Age differences in COVID-19 risk-taking, and the relationship with risk attitude and numerical ability.Royal Society open science · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesHealthcare workers have greater exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and an estimated 2.5-fold increased risk of contracting COVID-19 than the general population. We wished to explore the predictive role of basic demographics to establish a simple tool that could help risk stratify healthcare workers.
settingWe undertook a review of the published literature (including multiple search strategies in MEDLINE with PubMed interface) and critically assessed early reports on preprint servers. We explored the relative risk of mortality from readily available demographics to identify the population at the highest risk.
resultsThe published studies specifically assessing the risk of healthcare workers had limited demographics available; therefore, we explored the general population in the literature.
conclusionsWe generated a tool that provides a framework for objective risk stratification of doctors and healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic, without requiring disclosure of information that an individual may not wish to share with their direct line manager during the risk assessment process. This tool has been made freely available through the British Medical Association website and is widely used in the National Health Service and other external organisations.
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.