ArticleInfection and drug resistance2022
Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Working Women and Impact of Workplace Restrictions.
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 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.
- Education and pandemic SARS-CoV-2 infections in the German working population - the mediating role of working from home.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection among female workers who were restricted to working from home compared with those who continued to attend in-person work. Methods: As part of national surveillance program, serum samples for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 PCR were obtained on 1636 female school staff and salon/spa workers who were restricted to work remotely (restricted group) and 1190 female health-care workers who continued in-person work (unrestricted group). Results: Seropositivity rate was 5.1% among the restricted and 22.7% among the unrestricted group (P < 0.0001). Presence of symptoms at baseline (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.88; 95% CI 2.09-3.97), contact with a confirmed case (aOR 2.34; 95% CI 1.37-3.98), and unrestricted work type (aOR 4.71; 95% CI 3.24-6.86) were associated with a higher risk of infection, while increasing age was associated with a lower risk of infection. Conclusion: Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection as determined by seropositivity was higher among women who were not subject to workplace restrictions.
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.