ArticleAmerican journal of infection control2022
Risk of COVID-19 in healthcare workers working in intensive care setting.
Article in American journal of infection control, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of portable single-lead electrocardiogram device as an alternative for QTc monitoring in critically ill patients.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2024Article
- Feasibility of using KardiaMobile-L6 for QT interval monitoring during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in critical care patients.Scientific reports · 2023Observational
- Article
- The Relative Contributions of Occupational and Community Risk Factors for COVID-19 among Hospital Workers: The HOP-COVID Cohort Study.Journal of clinical 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe higher risk of COVID-19 in health care workers (HCWs) is well-known. However, the risk within HCWs is not fully understood. The objective was to compare the COVID-19 risk in intensive care unit (ICU) vs non-ICU locations.
methodsA prospective surveillance study was conducted among HCWs at a large tertiary care facility in Riyadh between March 1st to November 30th, 2020. HCWs included both clinical (provide direct patient care) and nonclinical positions (do not provide direct patient care).
resultsA total 1,594 HCWs with COVID-19 were included; 103 (6.5%) working in ICU and 1,491 (93.5%) working in non-ICU locations. Compared with non-ICU locations, ICU had more nurses (54.4% vs 22.1%, P < .001) and less support staff (2.9% vs 53.1%, P < .001). COVID-19 infection was similar in ICU and non-ICU locations (9.0% vs 9.8%, P = .374). However, it was significantly higher in ICU nurses (12.3% vs 6.5%, P < .001). Support staff had higher risk than other HCWs, irrespective of ICU working status (15.1% vs 7.2%, P < 0.001). The crude relative risk of COVID-19 in ICU vs non-ICU locations was 0.92, 95% confidence interval ( was 0.76-1.11 (P = .374). However, relative risk adjusted for professional category was significantly increased to 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.50 (P = .036).
conclusionsICU had a significantly higher risk of COVID-19 infection only after adjusting for the distribution and risk of different professional categories. The latter is probably determined by both exposure level and protection practices. The finding underscores the importance of strict implementation of preventive measures among all HCWs, including those performing nonclinical services.
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.