ArticlePloS one2023
COVID-19: Establishing, implementing and assessment safety strategy, descriptive interventional study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increase in severe acute respiratory syndrome SARS-CoV-2 has invariably affected medical professionals in their training, academic and professional development. The present study was an interventional descriptive study aimed at reducing the risk of exposure to COVID-19 and enabling physical attendance to the practical session for applied medical students by establishing and implementing a safety strategy. The adopted safety strategy has eight conditions and 50 requirements. Compliance with the safety strategy along with the serological diagnosis of COVID-19 was used as a key performance indicator for assessing the efficiency of the safety strategy. A total of 197 students were enrolled at the beginning of the study. The overall results showed that 78.1% of the respondents strictly followed the protocol, 14.5% of the individuals partially responded to the protocol and 7.4% of the individuals did not respond to the protocol. Twenty-two (12.6%) out of the 175 participants who completed the study had positive COVID-19 during the study period, whereas the remaining 153 participants (87.4%) appeared to be healthy. The serological results showed that 68 (38.9%) and 66 (37.7%) individuals of the study population had positive IgM+IgA and IgG of COVID-19, respectively; the majority of the participants who developed antibodies did not show symptoms and appeared to be healthy during the study. The physical distancing condition was the only condition that displayed a significant relationship with seropositive IgM+IgA. The compiling of standardized protocols along with serological diagnoses can be an effective tool in measuring the effectiveness of safety protocol and reducing the risk of exposure to COVID-19.
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.