ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2022
[Occupationally acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections among healthcare personnel in Frankfurt am Main from March to August 2020].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2022. 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.
- Analysis of Recognized Occupational Infectious Diseases in Germany Between 2018 and 2023.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2025Article
- Personal protective equipment for healthcare workers during COVID-19: Developing and applying a questionnaire and assessing associations between infection rates and shortages across 19 countries.Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStandardised surveillance of COVID-19 infections among healthcare personnel during the current pandemic was and is not available. In particular, the proportion of occupational infections among healthcare personnel and which workers among them are most at risk remains unclear.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to analyse the reported COVID-19 cases among healthcare personnel in Frankfurt/Main during the first six months of the pandemic, to determine the number of occupational infections and thus to allow a better interpretation of the data published by the Robert Koch Institute.
methodsData from the Frankfurt/Main Health Protection Authority was analysed for the period from 1 March to 31 August 2020, and healthcare personnel were recruited for a cross-sectional survey. Three subgroups were defined and analysed according to whether the infectious contact occurred at work, in private or in an unknown setting.
resultsHealthcare personnel accounted for 11.8% (319/2700) of all reported COVID-19 cases in Frankfurt/Main during the period studied. In the survey, 47.2% of respondents reported that their infection was acquired in the workplace. There was an association of contact with COVID-19 patients as well as employment in the internal medicine ward and a reported work-related infection. Also apparent was an association between suspected occupational infections and consequently filed reports for alleged occupational disease. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionHealth protection authorities are in a position to collect relevant data on work-related transmissions in healthcare occupations and workplaces and should generate standardised data on infected healthcare personnel. This data is necessary to take targeted infection control and prevention measures that protect healthcare personnel and their patients.
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.