ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Impact of Two Different Recruitment Procedures (Random vs. Volunteer Selection) on the Results of Seroepidemiological Study (SARS-CoV-2).
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assessing the burden of COVID-19 in developing countries: systematic review, meta-analysis and public policy implications.BMJ global health · 2022Pooled it
- Agreement between seroprevalence- and model-based estimates of COVID-19 burden.Global health action · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the genome-informed risk assessment (GIRA) approach from eMERGE in an independent health system.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Recruitment, data collection, participation rate, and representativeness of the international cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study across 38 countries.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Exploring the scientific underpinnings of investigating safety signals: analytical insights in deciphering drug safety evidence.Frontiers in drug safety and regulation · 2024Article
- A Proactive Testing Strategy to COVID-19 for Reopening University Campus during Omicron Wave in Korea: Ewha Safe Campus (ESC) Project.Ewha medical journal · 2023Article
- Can CT-based assessment of lateral malleolus anatomy indicate when and how to perform an intramedullary fixation in distal fibula fractures? An analysis of 150 ankles.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023Article
- Factors Affecting COVID-19 Testing Behaviours Among the Population in South Western Nigeria.International journal of public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The proper recruitment of subjects for population-based epidemiological studies is critical to the external validity of the studies and, above all, to the sound and correct interpretation of the findings. Since 2020, the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been a new factor that has been, additionally, hindering studies. Therefore, the aim of our study is to compare demographic, socio-economic, health-related characteristics and the frequency of SARS-CoV-2 infection occurrence among the randomly selected group and the group composed of volunteers. We compare two groups of participants from the cross-sectional study assessing the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which was conducted in autumn 2020, in three cities of the Silesian Voivodeship in Poland. The first group consisted of a randomly selected, nationally representative, age-stratified sample of subjects (1167 participants, "RG" group) and was recruited using personal invitation letters and postal addresses obtained from a national registry. The second group (4321 volunteers, "VG" group) included those who expressed their willingness to participate in response to an advertisement published in the media. Compared with RG subjects, volunteers were more often females, younger and professionally active, more often had a history of contact with a COVID-19 patient, post-contact nasopharyngeal swab, fewer comorbidities, as well as declared the occurrence of symptoms that might suggest infection with SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, in the VG group the percentage of positive IgG results and tuberculosis vaccination were higher. The findings of the study confirm that surveys limited to volunteers are biased. The presence of the bias may seriously affect and distort inference and make the generalizability of the results more than questionable. Although effective control over selection bias in surveys, including volunteers, is virtually impossible, its impact on the survey results is impossible to predict. However, whenever possible, such surveys could include a small component of a random sample to assess the presence and potential effects of selection bias.
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.