ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2021
Initial Public-Health Emergency Response to SARS and COVID-19 Pandemics in Mainland China: A Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating emergency management capabilities and identifying their related factors for public health emergencies in China.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Research on the measurement of China's emergency management capabilities for public health emergencies and their driving factors.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Prehospital Cardiac Arrest Should be Considered When Evaluating Coronavirus Disease 2019 Mortality in the United States.Methods of information in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) was reported first in China in 2003. The world is currently coping with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). We conducted a retrospective study to compare the initial public-health emergency response (PHER) to SARS and COVID-19 in mainland China.
methodsA qualitative comparative study was conducted to compare the PHER timelines to SARS and COVID-19 by selecting six crucial time points. Besides, we explored the speed of spread, peak time and plateau period of SARS and COVID-19, respectively, by comparing the confirmed cases in the same time interval.
resultsThe government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) accomplished the entire initial PHER to SARS in 127 days and for COVID-19 in 44 days. The speed of PHER for COVID-19 was 83 days faster. The peak time of SARS arose ~80 days later than that of COVID-19. Though the peak number of confirmed daily cases for COVID-19 was fivefold more than that of SARS, the onset of the stabilization period for COVID-19 was >2 months earlier than that of SARS.
conclusionOverall, the speed of the initial PHER to COVID-19 pandemic was faster than that for SARS. Compared with the speed of hospital reporting and government policymaking, the speed of pathogen identification improved the most. The COVID-19 pandemic curve entered a plateau period earlier than the SARS pandemic curve, which suggests that the pandemic was controlled more effectively because of a timely PHER. The PRC government should emphasize improving the ability of hospitals to restrain infectious diseases by enhancing the direct reporting system and cultivating crisis management to empower relevant individuals to make timely scientific decisions.
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.