Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35818412›Full record

ArticleBulletin of the National Research Centre2022

Coronavirus disease 2019 in proportion to population: a historical analysis of Saudi Arabia.

Asharaf Abdul Salam, Rshood M Al-Khraif, Thandassery R Dilip, Ibrahim Elsegaey

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bulletin of the National Research Centre, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Asharaf Abdul SalamKing Saud University Center for Population Studies, PB No. 2454, Riyadh, 11451 Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-9813-0553
Rshood M Al-KhraifKing Saud University Center for Population Studies, PB No. 2454, Riyadh, 11451 Saudi Arabia.
Thandassery R DilipInternational Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India.
Ibrahim ElsegaeyKing Saud University Center for Population Studies, PB No. 2454, Riyadh, 11451 Saudi Arabia.
King Saud University · SAInternational Institute for Population Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Saudi Arabia is one of the countries seriously affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide. With a few cases in early March, the daily spread of this disease increased to nearly 5000 at one point in time during the first wave to mid-June 2020. With committed efforts and public health interventions, it has been controlled to nearly 1000 by the end of August 2020 and less than 217 by November 28, 2020; thereafter, reporting declines and small increases. However, by December 2021, a third wave started, lasting for 2 months, during which the infection rate increased rapidly. By April 1, 2022, the number of infected persons in the country was 750,998, with 9047 deaths, 7131 active, and approximately 400 critical cases. This analysis of COVID-19 statistics of the Ministry of Health of Saudi Arabia (March 2020-April 2022) is carried out along with population data to extract patient proportions per 100,000 persons to illustrate the hypothesized social and community impact, which influences families and households. Results: The results showed a high rate of infection and mortality, but with recovery. These rates varied across localities and cities. A few cities with higher population densities are less affected by the spread of the epidemic. However, few localities and upcoming cities/townships were severely affected. These effects are explained as the percentage of the population affected, which exposes the impact on societies, families, and individual members. With concerted efforts, they are brought under control through recovery and adopting mitigation methods. Conclusions: Localities could be classified into four categories based on the proportion of the infected population: rapidly increasing, moderately increasing, declining, and stabilizing. Moreover, differential proportions of the affected population have implications at social and familial levels. Analysis and understanding of these trends, considering the base population, are important for policy building and intervention strategies accounting for grassroots-level demographics, which might serve as a tool to enhance interventions at population and family levels. Strategies for awareness creation and compassionate care are essential to address the psychosocial impact of health emergencies, as proved by the Ministry of Health, Saudi Arabia.

Indexed as

FamiliesMajor affected localitiesMortalityRecoveriesSocial impact

Identifiers

PMID35818412
PMCPMC9261159
OpenAlexW4284895579

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.