ArticleBMJ open2021
Testing behaviour and positivity for SARS-CoV-2 infection: insights from web-based participatory surveillance in the Netherlands.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- SARS-CoV-2 testing uptake and its determinants in six ethnic groups living in Amsterdam, the Netherlands: a registry-based study within the HELIUS cohort.European journal of public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Spatio-temporal forecasting of COVID-19 cases in the Netherlands for source and contact tracing.International journal of population data science · 2025Article
- Changes to Public Health Surveillance Methods Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- The daily updated Dutch national database on COVID-19 epidemiology, vaccination and sewage surveillance.Scientific data · 2023Article
- Drivers of SARS-CoV-2 testing behaviour: a modelling study using nationwide testing data in England.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Youths' perceptions and behaviors on COVID-19 testing.PloS one · 2023Article
- Availability of oral antivirals against SARS-CoV-2 infection and the requirement for an ethical prescribing approach.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2022Review
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
objectivesWe aimed to identify populations at a high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection but who are less likely to present for testing, by determining which sociodemographic and household factors are associated with a lower propensity to be tested and, if tested, with a higher risk of a positive test result. DESIGN AND
settingInternet-based participatory surveillance data from the general population of the Netherlands.
participantsWeekly survey data collected over a 5-month period (17 November 2020 to 18 April 2021) from a total of 12 026 participants who had contributed at least 2 weekly surveys was analysed.
methodsMultivariable analyses using generalised estimating equations for binomial outcomes were conducted to estimate the adjusted ORs of testing and of test positivity associated with participant and household characteristics.
resultsMale sex (adjusted OR for testing (OR
conclusionsThe factors identified using this approach can help identify potential target groups for improving communication and encouraging testing among those with symptoms, and thus increase the effectiveness of testing, which is essential for the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and for public health strategies in the longer term.
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.