Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36115936›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

A cross-country comparison of Covid-19 containment measures and their effects on the epidemic curves.

Fidelia Cascini, Giovanna Failla, Cecilia Gobbi, Elena Pallini, Jin Hui, Wang Luxi, Leonardo Villani, Wilm Quentin, Stefania Boccia, Walter Ricciardi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Fidelia CasciniSection of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168, Roma, Italy.
Giovanna FaillaSection of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168, Roma, Italy. giovannafailla29@gmail.com.
Cecilia GobbiData Science & Advanced Analytics, IQVIA, 20124, Milan, Italy.
Elena PalliniIntegrated Analytics, IQVIA, 20124, Milan, Italy.
Jin HuiData Science & Advanced Analytics, IQVIA, Bejing, 100006, China.
Wang LuxiSales Effectiveness, Marketing Commercial Excellence, Novo Nordisk, Beijing, 100102, China.
Leonardo VillaniSection of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168, Roma, Italy.
Wilm QuentinDepartment of Health Care Management, Technische Universität Berlin, 10623, Berlin, Germany.
Stefania BocciaSection of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168, Roma, Italy.
Walter RicciardiSection of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168, Roma, Italy.
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITAgostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITEuropean Observatory on Health Systems and Policies · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEuropean countries are still searching to eliminate or contain the Covid-19 pandemic. A variety of approaches have achieved different levels of success in limiting the spread of the disease early and preventing avoidable deaths. Governmental policy responses may explain these differences and this study aims to describe evidence about the effectiveness of containment measures throughout the course of the pandemic in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK).

methodsThe research approach adopted consisted of three steps: 1) Build a Containment Index (C.I.) that considers nine parameters to make an assessment on the strength of measures; 2) Develop dynamic epidemiological models for forecasting purposes; 3) Predict case numbers by assuming containment measures remain constant for a period of 30 days.

resultsOur analysis revealed that in the five European countries we compared, the use of different approaches definitively affected the effectiveness of containment measures for the Covid-19 pandemic.

conclusionThe evidence found in our research can be useful to inform policy makers' decisions when deciding to introduce or relax containment measures and their timing, both during the current pandemic or in addressing possible future health crises.

Indexed as

COVID-19EuropeFranceGermanyHumansPandemicsContainment measuresCovid-19Health policiesPandemicRestrictions

Identifiers

PMID36115936
PMCPMC9482299
OpenAlexW4296186510

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.