Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35393629›Full record

Observational studyActa dermato-venereologica2022

A Nationwide Observational Study of Chlamydia trachomatis Infections in Denmark during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Paula L Hedley, Steen Hoffmann, Ulrik Lausten-Thomsen, Marianne Voldstedlund, Karsten Dalsgaard Bjerre, Anders Hviid, Lone Krebs, Jørgen S Jensen, Michael Christiansen

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Acta dermato-venereologica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Paula L Hedley
Steen Hoffmann
Ulrik Lausten-Thomsen
Marianne Voldstedlund
Karsten Dalsgaard Bjerre
Anders Hviid
Lone Krebs
Jørgen S Jensen
Michael ChristiansenDepartment for Congenital Disorders, Statens Serum Institut, 5 Artillerivej, DK-2300 Copenhagen, Denmark. mic@ssi.dk.
Statens Serum Institut · DKHvidovre Hospital · DKRigshospitalet · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine whether COVID-19 restrictions had an impact on Chlamydia trachomatis infections compared with 2018 and 2019. A retrospective nationwide observational study was performed using monthly incidences of laboratory-confirmed chlamydia cases and number of tests, obtained from Danish national surveillance data. Testing rates and positivity rates were compared using Poisson and logistic regression. The first Danish COVID-19 lockdown (12 March to 14 April 2020) resulted in a reduction in the number of chlamydia tests performed (rate ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval  0.71-0.73) and a consequent reduction in the number of laboratory-identified cases (66.5 vs 88.3 per 100,000 population during the same period in 2018 to 2019). This period was followed by a return of testing and test positivity close to the level seen in 2018 to 2019. The second Danish COVID-19 lockdown (17 December to 31 March 2021) resulted in crude incidence rates of laboratory-confirmed chlamydia infection that were similar to the crude incidence rates seen during same period in 2018 to 2019. In conclusion, the Danish COVID-19 restrictions have had negligible effects on laboratory-confirmed C. trachomatis transmission.

Indexed as

Chlamydia InfectionsCOVID-19Chlamydia trachomatisCommunicable Disease ControlDenmarkHumansPandemicsRetrospective StudiesSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID35393629
PMCPMC9593478
OpenAlexW4225533179

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.