ArticleBMJ open2022
COVID-19 among staff and their family members of a healthcare research institution in Bangladesh between March 2020 and April 2021: a test-negative case-control study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Protection of staff and families during COVID-19 pandemic: experience from a research institute in Bangladesh.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 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
12 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify factors associated with COVID-19 positivity among staff and their family members of icddr,b, a health research institute located in Bangladesh.
settingDhaka, Bangladesh.
participantsA total of 4295 symptomatic people were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse-transcription PCR between 19 March 2020 and 15 April 2021. Multivariable logistic regression was done to identify the factors associated with COVID-19 positivity by contrasting test positives with test negatives.
resultForty-three per cent of the participants were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The median age was high in positive cases (37 years vs 34 years). Among the positive cases, 97% were recovered, 2.1% had reinfections, 24 died and 41 were active cases as of 15 April 2021. Multivariable regression analysis showed that age more than 60 years (adjusted OR (aOR)=2.1, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.3; p<0.05), blood group AB (aOR=1.5, 95% CI 1.1 to 2; p<0.05), fever (aOR=3.1, 95% CI 2.6 to 3.7; p<0.05), cough (aOR=1.3, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.6; p<0.05) and anosmia (aOR=2.7, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.7; p<0.05) were significantly associated with higher odds of being COVID-19 positive when compared with participants who were tested negative.
conclusionsThe study findings suggest that older age, fever, cough and anosmia were associated with COVID-19 among the study participants.
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.