Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34829388›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

COVID-19 Diagnostics Outside and Inside the National Health Service: A Single Institutional Experience.

Lukasz Fulawka, Aleksandra Kuzan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lukasz FulawkaMolecular Pathology Centre Cellgen, 50-353 Wroclaw, Poland.
Aleksandra KuzanDepartment of Biochemistry and Immunochemistry, Wroclaw Medical University, 50-367 Wroclaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-4264-8174
Molecular Pathology Centre CellgenWroclaw Medical University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 epidemic has been going on continuously for more than 1.5 years. Fast and reliable diagnosis is a key component of an outbreak response strategy. Our goal is to present the statistics from one of the diagnostic points of a large city in Poland. Swabs of the throat or nasopharynx of people reporting for molecular diagnostics of SARS-CoV-2 presence were taken. CE-IVD-certified RNA isolation and RT-PCR assays were used. According to our data, the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the examined population equaled 14.7%; however, large differences were observed depending on where the sampling point was located: as much as 50.3% of positive results for samples collected at a stationary point, 36.2% for samples from inpatients and hospital staff, and only 8.9% for samples from patients whose test was paid by their employer. The age structure of the infected population was fairly even, with a slightly higher number of people over 50 years of age. Men were examined more often, but it was among women that a higher percentage of infection was recorded. Every fifth test was performed for a foreigner, but compared to Poles, a much lower incidence of infection was found in these samples. We conclude that due to the high prevalence of infection in patients from social care centers and in those referred to hospitals, it is recommended that a special sanitary regime is followed in those settings. We will evaluate the effectiveness of vaccinations, expecting that the coming months bring positive changes in the statistics on prevalence.

Indexed as

COVID-19diagnosticsprevalenceSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID34829388
PMCPMC8619246
OpenAlexW3210643612

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.