ArticlePeerJ2022
Development of a COVID-19 risk assessment model for participants at outdoor music festivals: evaluation of the validity and control measure effectiveness based on two actual events in Japan and Spain.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications of Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment to Respiratory Pathogens and Implications for Uptake in Policy: A State-of-the-Science Review.Environmental health perspectives · 2024Review
- A coupled experimental and statistical approach for an assessment of SARS-CoV-2 infection risk at indoor event locations.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We developed an environmental exposure model to estimate the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) risk among participants at outdoor music festivals and validated the model using two real events-one in Japan (Event 1) and one in Spain (Event 2). Furthermore, we considered a hypothetical situation in which Event 1 was held but enhanced measures were implemented to evaluate the extent to which the risk could be reduced by additional infection control measures, such as negative antigen tests on the day of the event, wearing of masks, disinfection of environmental surfaces, and vaccination. Among 7,392 participants, the total number of already- and newly-infected individuals who participated in Event 1 according to the new model was 47.0 (95% uncertainty interval: 12.5-185.5), which is in good agreement with the reported value (45). The risk of infection at Event 2 (1.98 × 10
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.