Observational studyBMC public health2023
Low impact of regular PCR testing on presence at work site during the COVID-19 pandemic: experiences during an open observational study in Lower Saxony 2020-21.
Observational study in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility of molecular-based testing strategies for SARS-CoV-2-screening in workplaces: a systematic review and reporting checklist.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- CRISPR/Cas system and its application in the diagnosis of animal infectious diseases.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSince social distancing during the COVID-19-pandemic had a profound impact on professional life, this study investigated the effect of PCR testing on on-site work.
methodsPCR screening, antibody testing, and questionnaires offered to 4,890 working adults in Lower Saxony were accompanied by data collection on demographics, family status, comorbidities, social situation, health-related behavior, and the number of work-related contacts. Relative risks (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals were estimated for the associations between regular PCR testing and other work and health-related variables, respectively, and working on-site. Analyses were stratified by the suitability of work tasks for mobile office.
resultsBetween April 2020 and February 2021, 1,643 employees underwent PCR testing. Whether mobile working was possible strongly influenced the work behavior. Persons whose work was suitable for mobile office (mobile workers) had a lower probability of working on-site than persons whose work was not suitable for mobile office (RR = 0.09 (95 % CI: 0.07 - 0.12)). In mobile workers, regular PCR-testing was slightly associated with working on-site (RR = 1.19 (0.66; 2.14)). In those whose working place was unsuitable for mobile office, the corresponding RR was 0.94 (0.80; 1.09). Compared to persons without chronic diseases, chronically ill persons worked less often on-site if their workplace was suitable for mobile office (RR = 0.73 (0.40; 1.33)), but even more often if their workplace was not suitable for mobile office (RR = 1.17 (1.04; 1.33)).
conclusionIf work was suitable for mobile office, regular PCR-testing did not have a strong effect on presence at the work site.
trial registrationAn ethics vote of the responsible medical association (Lower Saxony, Germany) retrospectively approved the evaluation of the collected subject data in a pseudonymized form in the context of medical studies (No. Bo/30/2020; Bo/31/2020; Bo/32/2020).
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.