ArticleScience progress
Analysis of the reliability of patient COVID-19 screening data compared against their actual test data.
Article in Science progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Performance Assessment Study of Different Clinical Samples for Rapid COVID-19 Antigen Diagnosis Tests.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- General public awareness, knowledge and attitude toward COVID-19 infection and prevention: a cross-sectional study from Pakistan.F1000Research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the truthfulness of patients about their pre-appointment COVID-19 screening tests at a dental clinic.
methodsA total of 613 patients were recruited for the study from the dental clinic at the Faculty of Dentistry, Najran University, Saudi Arabia. The data collection was done in three parts from the patients who visited the hospital to receive dental treatment. The first part included the socio-demographic characteristics of the patients and the COVID-19 swab tests performed within the past 14 days. The second part was the clinical examination, and the third part was a confirmation of the swab test taken by the patient by checking the Hesen website using the patient ID. After data collection, statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS 26.0. Descriptive analysis was done and expressed as mean, standard deviation, frequency, and percentage (%). A cross-tabulation, also described as a contingency table, was used to identify trends and patterns across data and explain the correlation between different variables.
resultsIt was seen from the status of the swab test within 14 days of the patient's arrival at the hospital for the dental treatment that 18 (2.9%) patients lied about the pre-treatment swab test within 14 days, and 595 (97.1%) were truthful. The observed and expected counts showed across genders and diagnosis a statistically significant difference (
conclusionsDental healthcare workers are worried and assume a high risk of COVID-19 infection as the patients are not truthful about the pre-treatment COVID-19 swab test. Routine rapid tests on patients and the healthcare staff are a feasible option for lowering overall risks.
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.