ArticleCureus2022
Standard Versus Advanced Protective Measures in a COVID-Free Surgical Pathway.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The importance of coronavirus disease (COVID)-free surgical pathways during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been demonstrated. However, the extent of protective measures to be applied against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), particularly before vaccines became available, remained unclear. Methods This retrospective study included all SARS-CoV-2-negative patients admitted to the COVID-free pathway of a regional abdominal surgery hub center in Northern Italy over 12 months, before the vaccination campaign. During the first seven months, basic protective measures against SARS-CoV-2 were adopted (surgical masks, swabs for symptomatic patients, and intra- or interhospital transfers), since patients were treated as effectively negative (standard management). During the last five months, advanced measures were implemented (enhanced personal protections and systematic control swabs), as patients were considered potentially positive (advanced management). The aim of this article was to compare SARS-CoV-2 incidence and surgical outcomes in these periods. Results A total of 283 and 194 patients were admitted under standard and advanced management, respectively; pre-admission data differed only in the rate of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (2.5% versus 6.7%, p= 0.034). The SARS-CoV-2 incidence was 3.9% and 3.1% for standard and advanced periods, respectively (p = 0.835). Two internal outbreaks developed during the standard phase. The advanced protocol significantly increased the rate of patients re-tested for SARS-CoV-2 (83% versus 41.7%, p < 0.001) and allowed early detection of all infections, which remained sporadic. Surgical outcomes were similar. Conclusions Advanced management was instrumental in detecting positive patients early and preventing outbreaks, without affecting surgical results; accordingly, it stands as a reproducible model for future pandemic scenarios.
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.