Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36001614›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Where is the greatest risk of COVID-19 infection? Findings from Germany's largest public health department, Cologne.

Lukas Broichhaus, Julian Book, Sven Feddern, Barbara Grüne, Florian Neuhann, Johannes Nießen, Gerhard A Wiesmüller, Annelene Kossow, Christine Joisten

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Lukas BroichhausCologne Health Department, Infektions- und Umwelthygiene, Neumarkt, Köln, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2646-6514
Julian BookCologne Health Department, Infektions- und Umwelthygiene, Neumarkt, Köln, Germany.
Sven FeddernCologne Health Department, Infektions- und Umwelthygiene, Neumarkt, Köln, Germany.
Barbara GrüneCologne Health Department, Infektions- und Umwelthygiene, Neumarkt, Köln, Germany.
Florian NeuhannCologne Health Department, Infektions- und Umwelthygiene, Neumarkt, Köln, Germany.
Johannes NießenCologne Health Department, Infektions- und Umwelthygiene, Neumarkt, Köln, Germany.
Gerhard A WiesmüllerCologne Health Department, Infektions- und Umwelthygiene, Neumarkt, Köln, Germany.
Annelene KossowCologne Health Department, Infektions- und Umwelthygiene, Neumarkt, Köln, Germany.
Christine JoistenCologne Health Department, Infektions- und Umwelthygiene, Neumarkt, Köln, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2455-8901

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSARS-CoV-2 has been spreading worldwide since late 2019. Before vaccines became available, exclusively non-pharmaceutical measures were used to prevent transmission of infection. Despite the fact that vaccinations are now available, it is still important to identify relevant transmission routes in order to contain the COVID-19- or further pandemics. Therefore, this study aims to systematically analyse data from the largest public health department in Germany to determine the significance of the various known and unknown transmission situations in terms of the proportion of infections.

methodsAll infections in Cologne were systematically recorded by the local health department. In addition to clinical data, the transmission situations were recorded and categorised as pertaining to social contact, work contact, travellers, health care workers, users of educational institutions, visitors of community institutions, infection in the context of medical treatment, and unknown infection.

findingsThe analysis included 25,966 persons. A transmission situation could be identified in 82.7% of the cases (n = 21,477). Most persons (42.1%) were infected due to social contact, primarily within their own household. Another 22.3% were infected at their place of work; this was particularly common among staff members of medical facilities, nursing homes and educational institutions. In 17.3% of the cases, the transmission situation remained unknown; the cases with unknown transmission situation were slightly more often symptomatic (75.2%) than the cases with known transmission situation (69.4%).

interpretationConsidering that during the study period the leading strains were the wild-type and alpha-variant transmission rather occurred during scenarios involving close contacts than in anonymous situations. Presumably, however, the findings can be transferred to the new variants. Therefore, in order to prevent transmission, besides vaccination regular antigen tests and/or appropriate protective measures remain relevant until this pandemic has subsided.

Indexed as

COVID-19Contact TracingHumansPandemicsPublic HealthSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID36001614
PMCPMC9401106

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.