Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35039315›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2022

Healthcare use in 700 000 children and adolescents for six months after covid-19: before and after register based cohort study.

Karin Magnusson, Katrine Damgaard Skyrud, Pål Suren, Margrethe Greve-Isdahl, Ketil Størdal, Doris Tove Kristoffersen, Kjetil Telle

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Short and Long-Term Wellbeing of Children following SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Mechanisms of long COVID: An updated review.Chinese medical journal pulmonary and critical care medicine · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Karin MagnussonCluster for Health Services Research, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222, Skøyen, N-0213 Oslo, Norway karin.magnusson@fhi.no.ORCID 0000-0003-4851-5794
Katrine Damgaard SkyrudCluster for Health Services Research, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222, Skøyen, N-0213 Oslo, Norway.
Pål SurenNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Margrethe Greve-IsdahlNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Ketil StørdalNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Doris Tove KristoffersenCluster for Health Services Research, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222, Skøyen, N-0213 Oslo, Norway.
Kjetil TelleCluster for Health Services Research, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222, Skøyen, N-0213 Oslo, Norway.
Norwegian Institute of Public Health · NOOslo University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore whether and for how long use of healthcare services is increased among children and adolescents after covid-19.

designBefore and after register based study.

settingGeneral population of Norway.

participantsNorwegians aged 1-19 years (n=706 885) who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 from 1 August 2020 to 1 February 2021 (n=10 279 positive, n=275 859 negative) or not tested (n=420 747) and were not admitted to hospital, by age groups 1-5, 6-15, and 16-19 years.

main outcome measuresMonthly percentages of all cause and cause specific healthcare use in primary care (general practitioner, emergency ward) and specialist care (outpatient, inpatient) from six months before to about six months after the week of being tested for SARS-CoV-2, using a difference-in-differences approach.

resultsA substantial short term relative increase in primary care use was observed for participants during the first month after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result compared with those who tested negative (age 1-5 years: 339%, 95% confidence interval 308% to 369%; 6-15 years: 471%, 450% to 491%; 16-19 years: 401%, 380% to 422%). Use of primary care for the younger age groups was still increased at two months (1-5 years: 22%, 4% to 40%; 6-15 years: 14%, 2% to 26%) and three months (1-5 years: 26%, 7% to 46%, 6-15 years: 15%, 3% to 28%), but not for the oldest group (16-19 years: 11%, -2% to 24% and 6%, -7% to 19%, respectively). Children aged 1-5 years who tested positive also showed a minor long term (≤6 months) relative increase in primary care use (13%, -0% to 26%) that was not observed for the older age groups, compared with same aged children who tested negative. Results were similar yet the age differences less pronounced compared with untested controls. For all age groups, the increase in primary care visits was due to respiratory and general or unspecified conditions. No increased use of specialist care was observed.

conclusionCovid-19 among children and adolescents was found to have limited impact on healthcare services in Norway. Preschool aged children might take longer to recover (3-6 months) than primary or secondary school students (1-3 months), usually because of respiratory conditions.

Indexed as

Facilities and Services UtilizationAdolescentAge FactorsAmbulatory CareChildChild, PreschoolCohort StudiesCOVID-19COVID-19 Nucleic Acid TestingEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHospitalizationHumansInfantMaleNorway

Identifiers

PMID35039315
PMCPMC8762452
OpenAlexW4205773285

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.