ArticlePloS one2022
Factors associated with the diagnosis of COVID-19 among Brazilian health professionals COVID-19 and health professionals.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimating Hidden Population Size of COVID-19 using Respondent-Driven Sampling Method - A Systematic Review.Infectious disorders drug targets · 2024Pooled it
- Occlusion body-incorporated SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD via cypovirus polyhedrin-derived peptide: a novel insect cell-expressed antigen for high-accuracy COVID-19 diagnosis, and humoral immune response and hybrid immunity evaluation.Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo · 2026Article
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 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealth professionals are on the front lines against the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and are at high risk for acquiring the infection. Failures in precautionary measures, inadequacy/scarcity of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), and lack of social and family distancing may be associated with increased exposure and contamination by the new coronavirus. This study investigated the prevalence of COVID-19 among Brazilian health professionals and associated factors according to demographic and occupational characteristics.
methodsA cross-sectional, analytical study was conducted using an online survey with 12,086 health professionals from all regions of Brazil. Data were collected using an adaptation of the respondent-driven sampling method for the virtual environment. The outcome variable was the diagnosis of COVID-19. Bivariate and multiple logistic regression analyzes were used to identify an association between the diagnosis of COVID-19 and demographic and occupational variables. Variables were considered statistically significant based on p<0.05.
resultsMost participants were female, from the northeast region, and nursing professionals. A prevalence of 31.95% (95%CI: 31.0%, 32.9%) of COVID-19 was estimated. Following multiple regression analysis, the variables associated with the diagnosis of COVID-19 among health professionals were: male gender, married individuals, professionals who provide care to patients with COVID-19, who work in a field hospital, and those who work in institutions that did not offer enough quality PPE.
conclusionsThe study found a high prevalence of COVID-19 infection, with male professionals being those with greater chances. Inadequate supply or poor quality of PPE offered by health institutions compromises the health of professionals with an increase in positive diagnosis for COVID-19.
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.