Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36936598›Full record

ArticleBMJ medicine2022

Non-pharmaceutical interventions and covid-19 burden in the United States: retrospective, observational cohort study.

Michael Ahlers, Hilary Aralis, Wilson Tang, Jeremy B Sussman, Gregg C Fonarow, Boback Ziaeian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Michael AhlersInternal Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Hilary AralisBiostatistics, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Wilson TangDavid Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jeremy B SussmanInternal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2158-3618
Gregg C FonarowInternal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Boback ZiaeianInternal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9787-3649

Funding

The Effect of Nanoparticle Encapsulated Resveratrol on Treatment of PeriodontitisKL2TR001882 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Elizabeta Nemeth · 2016 to 2026
$13.1M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001882
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the adoption and discontinuation of four broadly used non-pharmaceutical interventions on shifts in the covid-19 burden among US states. Design: Retrospective, observational cohort study. Setting: US state data on covid-19 between 19 January 2020 and 7 March 2021. Participants: US population with a diagnosis of covid-19. Main outcome measures: Empirically derived breakpoints in case and mortality velocities (ie, rate of change) were used to identify periods of stable, decreasing, or increasing covid-19 burden. Associations between adoption of non-pharmaceutical interventions and subsequent decreases in case or death rates were estimated by use of generalised linear models accounting for weekly variability across US states. State level case and mortality counts per day were obtained from the Covid-19 Tracking Project. State level policies on non-pharmaceutical interventions included stay-at-home orders, indoor public gathering bans (mild >10 or severe ≤10 people), indoor restaurant dining bans, and public mask mandates. National policies were not included in statistical models. Results: 28 602 830 cases and 511 899 deaths were recorded during the study. Odds of a reduction in covid-19 case velocity increased for stay-at-home orders (odds ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval 1.63 to 2.52), indoor dining bans (1.62, 1.25 to 2.10), public mask mandates (2.18, 1.47 to 3.23), and severe indoor public gathering bans (1.68, 1.31 to 2.16) in univariate analysis. In mutually adjusted models, odds remained elevated for orders to stay at home (adjusted odds ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 2.07) and public mask mandates (2.27, 1.51 to 3.41). Stay-at-home orders (odds ratio 2.00, 95% confidence interval 1.53 to 2.62; adjusted odds ratio 1.89, 95% confidence interval 1.25 to 2.87) was also associated with a greater likelihood of decrease in death velocity in unadjusted and adjusted models. Conclusions: State level non-pharmaceutical interventions used in the US during the covid-19 pandemic, in particular stay-at-home orders, were associated with a decreased covid-19 burden.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health policyInfection controlPublic health

Identifiers

PMID36936598
PMCPMC9978758

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.