ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2022
Population-Based Assessment of Contact Tracing Operations for Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Pirkanmaa Hospital District, Finland.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of 4Kscore as a Reflex Test to Prostate-specific Antigen in the GÖTEBORG-2 Prostate Cancer Screening Trial.European urology · 2024Article
- Risk of COVID-19 in different groups of healthcare professionals between February 2020 and June 2021 in Finland: a register-based cohort study.Infection prevention in practice · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic overwhelmed local contact tracing (CT) efforts in many countries. In Finland, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 incidence and mortality were among the lowest in Europe during 2020-2021. We evaluated CT efficiency, effectiveness, and transmission settings. Methods: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test-positive COVID-19 cases and high-risk contacts in the population-based CT database of Pirkanmaa Hospital District (population 540 000) during June 2020-May 2021 were interviewed. Results: Altogether 353 926 PCR tests yielded 4739 (1.3%) confirmed cases (average 14-day case notification rate, 34 per 100 000 population); about 99% of confirmed cases and high-risk contacts were reached by a CT team. Of 26 881 high-risk contacts who were placed in quarantine, 2275 subsequently tested positive (48% of new cases), 825 (17%) had been in quarantine ≥48 hours before symptoms, and 3469 (77%) of locally acquired cases were part of transmission chains with an identified setting. The highest secondary attack rates were seen in households (31%), healthcare patients (18%), and private functions (10%). Among the 311 hospitalized patients, COVID-19 diagnosis or exposure was known in 273 (88%) before emergency room admission (identified patients). Healthcare workers had the highest proportion of work-related infections (159 cases [35%]). The source of infection was classifiable in 65% and was most commonly a coworker (64 cases [62%]). Conclusions: Our data demonstrate the role of effective testing and CT implementation during the cluster phase of COVID-19 spread. Although half of newly diagnosed cases were already in quarantine, targeted public health measures were needed to control transmission. CT effectiveness during widespread community transmission should be assessed.
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.