ArticleBMJ open2021
Expert elicitation on the relative importance of possible SARS-CoV-2 transmission routes and the effectiveness of mitigations.
Article 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.
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.
- Developing better understanding of hygiene is key to developing hygiene behaviour change in home and everyday life settings.Perspectives in public health · 2024Article
- An Ultra-Compact and Low-Cost LAMP-Based Virus Detection Device.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Modelling the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on workplace transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the home-delivery sector.PloS one · 2023Article
- Environmental factors and mobility predict COVID-19 seasonality in the Netherlands.Environmental research · 2022Article
- Impact of BNT162b2 primary vaccination and homologous booster on anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA antibodies in baseline seronegative healthcare workers.Advances in laboratory medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo help people make decisions about the most effective mitigation measures against SARS-CoV-2 transmission in different scenarios, the likelihoods of transmission by different routes need to be quantified to some degree (however uncertain). These likelihoods need to be communicated in an appropriate way to illustrate the relative importance of different routes in different scenarios, the likely effectiveness of different mitigation measures along those routes, and the level of uncertainty in those estimates. In this study, a pragmatic expert elicitation was undertaken to supply the underlying quantitative values to produce such a communication tool.
participantsTwenty-seven individual experts from five countries and many scientific disciplines provided estimates. OUTCOME MEASURES: Estimates of transmission parameters, assessments of the quality of the evidence, references to relevant literature, rationales for their estimates and sources of uncertainty. RESULTS AND
conclusionThe participants' responses showed that there is still considerable disagreement among experts about the relative importance of different transmission pathways and the effectiveness of different mitigation measures due to a lack of empirical evidence. Despite these disagreements, when pooled, the majority views on each parameter formed an internally consistent set of estimates (for example, that transmission was more likely indoors than outdoors, and at closer range), which formed the basis of a visualisation to help individuals and organisations understand the factors that influence transmission and the potential benefits of different mitigation measures.
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.