Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35639911›Full record

ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2023

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Incidence and Risk Factors in a National, Community-Based Prospective Cohort of US Adults.

Denis Nash, Madhura S Rane, McKaylee M Robertson, Mindy Chang, Sarah Gorrell Kulkarni, Rebecca Zimba, William You, Amanda Berry, Chloe Mirzayi, Shivani Kochhar and 5 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Denis NashInstitute for Implementation Science in Population Health (ISPH), City University of New York (CUNY), New York, New York, USA.
Madhura S RaneInstitute for Implementation Science in Population Health (ISPH), City University of New York (CUNY), New York, New York, USA.
McKaylee M RobertsonInstitute for Implementation Science in Population Health (ISPH), City University of New York (CUNY), New York, New York, USA.
Mindy ChangInstitute for Implementation Science in Population Health (ISPH), City University of New York (CUNY), New York, New York, USA.
Sarah Gorrell KulkarniInstitute for Implementation Science in Population Health (ISPH), City University of New York (CUNY), New York, New York, USA.
Rebecca ZimbaInstitute for Implementation Science in Population Health (ISPH), City University of New York (CUNY), New York, New York, USA.
William YouInstitute for Implementation Science in Population Health (ISPH), City University of New York (CUNY), New York, New York, USA.
Amanda BerryInstitute for Implementation Science in Population Health (ISPH), City University of New York (CUNY), New York, New York, USA.
Chloe MirzayiInstitute for Implementation Science in Population Health (ISPH), City University of New York (CUNY), New York, New York, USA.
Shivani KochharInstitute for Implementation Science in Population Health (ISPH), City University of New York (CUNY), New York, New York, USA.
Andrew MarokoInstitute for Implementation Science in Population Health (ISPH), City University of New York (CUNY), New York, New York, USA.
Drew A WestmorelandInstitute for Implementation Science in Population Health (ISPH), City University of New York (CUNY), New York, New York, USA.
Angela M ParcesepeInstitute for Implementation Science in Population Health (ISPH), City University of New York (CUNY), New York, New York, USA.
Levi WaldronInstitute for Implementation Science in Population Health (ISPH), City University of New York (CUNY), New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2725-0694
Christian GrovInstitute for Implementation Science in Population Health (ISPH), City University of New York (CUNY), New York, New York, USA.
City University of New York · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases 3UH3AI133675-04S1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProspective cohort studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) incidence complement case-based surveillance and cross-sectional seroprevalence surveys.

methodsWe estimated the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a national cohort of 6738 US adults, enrolled in March-August 2020. Using Poisson models, we examined the association of social distancing and a composite epidemiologic risk score with seroconversion. The risk score was created using least absolute shrinkage selection operator (LASSO) regression to identify factors predictive of seroconversion. The selected factors were household crowding, confirmed case in household, indoor dining, gathering with groups of ≥10, and no masking in gyms or salons.

resultsAmong 4510 individuals with ≥1 serologic test, 323 (7.3% [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.5%-8.1%]) seroconverted by January 2021. Among 3422 participants seronegative in May-September 2020 and retested from November 2020 to January 2021, 161 seroconverted over 1646 person-years of follow-up (9.8 per 100 person-years [95% CI, 8.3-11.5]). The seroincidence rate was lower among women compared with men (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.69 [95% CI, .50-.94]) and higher among Hispanic (2.09 [1.41-3.05]) than white non-Hispanic participants. In adjusted models, participants who reported social distancing with people they did not know (IRR for always vs never social distancing, 0.42 [95% CI, .20-1.0]) and with people they knew (IRR for always vs never, 0.64 [.39-1.06]; IRR for sometimes vs never, 0.60 [.38-.96]) had lower seroconversion risk. Seroconversion risk increased with epidemiologic risk score (IRR for medium vs low score, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.03-2.81]; IRR for high vs low score, 3.49 [2.26-5.58]). Only 29% of those who seroconverted reported isolating, and only 19% were asked about contacts.

conclusionsModifiable risk factors and poor reach of public health strategies drove SARS-CoV-2 transmission across the United States.

Indexed as

COVID-19HIV SeropositivityAdultCross-Sectional StudiesCrowdingFamily CharacteristicsFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleProspective StudiesRisk FactorsSARS-CoV-2Seroepidemiologic StudiesUnited Statescommunity transmissionepidemiologic studyessential workersphysical distancingserology

Identifiers

PMID35639911
PMCPMC9213857
OpenAlexW4281647227

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.