Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36618254›Full record

ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2022

Assessment of clinical and virological outcomes of rural and urban populations: COVID-19.

Usha Bhocal, Ashima Katyal, Divya Dhull, Kausalya Raghuraman, Namita Nandal, Paramjeet S Gill

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Usha BhocalDepartment of Microbiology, VRDL, PGIMS, Rohtak, India.
Ashima KatyalDepartment of Microbiology, KCGMC, Karnal, Haryana, India.
Divya DhullDepartment of Microbiology, VRDL, PGIMS, Rohtak, India.
Kausalya RaghuramanDepartment of Microbiology, VRDL, PGIMS, Rohtak, India.
Namita NandalDepartment of Microbiology, VRDL, PGIMS, Rohtak, India.
Paramjeet S GillDepartment of Microbiology, VRDL, PGIMS, Rohtak, India.
Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences · INKalpana Chawla Government Medical College and Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To assess the clinical and virological status in urban and rural populations. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak for a period of six months. Upper respiratory tract (URT) specimens including nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs were collected from the patients and their contacts and processed by RT-PCR technique for COVID-19 detection. Further, clinical and virological response in both the population were assessed and compared. Results: A total of 37,724 URT samples were tested, out of which 20,144 (53%) samples were from the rural population and 17,580 (47%) from the urban population. Out of the total samples from urban and rural population, COVID-19 positivity was 13.9% in urban population and 6.2% in rural population. Around 86% patients or contacts were asymptomatic in both the rural and urban population and rests were symptomatic 14%. Among the symptomatic patients, sore throat was seen as the most common presenting symptom (95-100%) followed by fever (80-83%), dry cough (55-61%), nasal discharge (18-23%), and breathlessness (3-5%) in both the rural and urban population. Conclusion: Our outcomes provide novel facts that the COVID-19 epidemic severely affected both rural and urban populations but with few differences. In our study, positivity rate in case of urban population was 13.9% as compared to 6.2% in rural population. There are two foremost facets that contributed variation in positivity in both the population. First, better immune response in rural population as compared to urban population which can be due to the fact that rural people in India are more exposed to various pathogens during their early lifetime thus, improving their immune status. Second, factor could be elevated population densities in urban areas which can contribute to increased infectiousness thus higher positivity rate. In addition, people living in urban population have to commute more for their work and are exposed to more people throughout the day thus, having more possibility to get infection of COVID-19 as compared to the rural population. To the best of our knowledge, there are no studies conducted on COVID-19, among rural population of Haryana. Hence, this study will allow us to fill the gap in knowledge about the variation in contagion spread and immune response in both rural and urban populations.

Indexed as

ClinicalCOVID-19RT-PCRvirological seroprevalence

Identifiers

PMID36618254
PMCPMC9810966
OpenAlexW4313123894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.