ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Comparison of different estimators of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic activity on geographical and temporal levels.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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.
- Post-COVID condition or "long COVID", return-to work, and occupational health research.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Studies began investigating occupational exposures as a source of contamination to SARS-CoV-2, yet few considered the variation in SARS-Cov2 pandemic activity for these exposures. Several indicators were built to assess SARS-Cov2 activity though they usually serve a specific purpose and have limitations. The aim was to compare qualitatively different estimators of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic activity and to create an estimator of pandemic activity level based on daily hospital admissions for job-exposure matrices (JEM) usage. Methods: From publicly available French databases, we retrieved all data from March 19, 2020 (first day available) to March 25, 2021 (day of data collection) on four different estimators: percentage of intensive care bed occupied, reproductive number, tests' positive rate and number positive tests. An indicator based on new daily hospital admissions was created for a COVID JEM. Due to the heterogeneity of the estimators, a qualitative comparison was carried out. Results: During the study period, three major outbreaks took place. Though the number of positive tests was the first indicator to worsen during the 2nd outbreak, it failed to identify variation during the outbreak. Though each indicators behaved differently during the study period, the indicator based on new daily hospital admissions and the positive rate seemed to be the closest to one another. Conclusion: This study highlights the heterogeneity of the indicators used during the first and second SARS-Cov2 outbreaks in France. An indicator based on new daily hospital admissions seems to be a good candidate for estimating SARS-CoV-2 epidemic activity for COVID JEMs and is easily available in countries where usual indicators are not commonly accessible.
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.