ArticlePublic health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)
Statewide Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Diagnoses and Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
Article in Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Race, Ethnicity, and Gender Differences in Patient Reported Well-Being and Cognitive Functioning Within 3 Months of Symptomatic Illness During COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2025Article
- The COVID-19 global pandemic and allostatic load among a cohort of Black and Latina transgender women living with HIV.Psychology of sexual orientation and gender diversity · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveUnderstanding and identifying disparities in COVID-19 testing outcomes can help allocate resources to where they are most needed. The objective of this study was to estimate the association between lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) identity and SARS-CoV-2 test positivity.
methodsData were from the Rhode Island SARS-CoV-2 surveillance database and included tests scheduled from June 8, 2020, through January 15, 2021. We used multivariable generalized estimating equations accounting for repeat testing to estimate the odds of receiving a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 by LGBTQ+ identity and race/ethnicity, adjusting for sociodemographic and temporal confounders.
resultsIn multivariable analysis of 232 025 tests, LGBTQ+ people had lower odds of receiving a positive test result than cisgender heterosexual people (5.4% vs 8.7%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.59-0.68). Compared with cisgender heterosexual White people, LGBTQ+ White people were significantly less likely (aOR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.61-0.73) and cisgender heterosexual people of color were significantly more likely (aOR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.64-1.78) to receive a positive test result. LGBTQ+ people of color had similar test positivity (aOR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79-1.02) as cisgender heterosexual White people. People in sexual minority groups were significantly less likely than heterosexual people to receive a positive test result, but we found no significant differences in test results among cisgender, transgender, and gender nonconforming people.
conclusionsLGBTQ+ people may be less likely than heterosexual people to receive a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2, potentially related to protective health practices and greater social isolation. Addressing racial and ethnic disparities among both LGBTQ+ people and cisgender heterosexual people should be a priority of the public health workforce.
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.