ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Impact of Government Intervention in Response to Coronavirus Disease 2019.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of social distancing measures and lockdowns for reducing transmission of COVID-19 in non-healthcare, community-based settings.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2023Pooled it
- Global, regional, and national burden of vertebral fractures among women from 1990 to 2021: a systematic analysis based on the global burden of disease study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Long-term ambient air pollution and the risk of hip fracture among older adults: a nationwide cohort study.Archives of osteoporosis · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) led to the loss of lives and had serious social and economic effects. Countries implemented various quarantine policies to reduce the effects. The countries were divided into low- and high-risk groups based on the differences in quarantine policies and their levels of infection. Quarantine policies that significantly contributed to risk reduction were determined by analyzing 11 quarantine indicators for reducing the spread of COVID-19. The cross-tabulation and Chi-square tests were used to compare the quarantine policies by the groups. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the useful quarantine policies implemented by the low-risk group to verify quarantine policies for minimizing the negative effects. The analysis showed that the low- and medium-risk groups showed significant differences for 9 of the 11 indicators, and 4 of these differentiated the low- from the medium-risk group. Countries with strict quarantine policies related to workplace closure and staying at home were more likely to be included in the low-risk group. These policies had a significant impact in the low-risk countries and could contribute to reducing the spread and effects of COVID-19 in countries included in the high-risk group.
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.