Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36506714›Full record

ArticleEthique & sante2023

[Management of the Sars-Cov2 pandemic in France - Benefit-risk balance at the collective versus individual level individual scale in children].

I Claudet, C Bréhin

Open access · greenAbstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Ethique & sante, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 81% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

I ClaudetService des urgences pédiatriques, hôpital des Enfants, CHU de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
C BréhinService des urgences pédiatriques, hôpital des Enfants, CHU de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Hôpital des Enfants · FRInserm · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

According to the precautionary principle and facing the initial uncertainty of the potential seriousness of Covid-19, France has adopted collective measures understood as acceptable despite the deprivation of liberty and the known risks of long confinement on mental health. Such measures should be applied proportionately and cause the least possible harm. Among these, the closure of schools was decided by declination of those appearing in response plans to viral pandemics where children play a major role in the transmission of the disease (e.g. flu). In an unprecedented way, measures and constraints have been taken against the interests of children and to protect a vulnerable group other than the children themselves. From the perspective of children's health, the relationship between health gains from these measures and negative consequences has been unbalanced. The reduction in instruction time has reduced overall academic performance and has had adverse consequences for the socialization and development of children. Confinement has generated more serious domestic accidents, an increase in intra-family violence and marked collateral effects in terms of the mental health of adolescents. Very early on, the various Covid19-related publications showed that children were not the driving force behind this pandemic - If the initial application of collective measures was legitimate, the adaptation of measures at the individual level was out of step with the already known repercussions followed by those observed on the health of the child.

Indexed as

AutonomyChildrenPrinciple of cautionaryProportionalitySars-Cov2 pandemic

Identifiers

PMID36506714
PMCPMC9721277
OpenAlexW4310732277

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.