ArticlePloS one2023
Development and validation of a biological risk assessment tool among hospital personnel under COVID-19 pandemic conditions.
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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The need for a biological disease risk assessment method to prevent the contagion of these diseases, particularly among healthcare personnel, is crucial. Therefore, this study aimed to develop and validate a biological risk assessment tool for biological agents among hospital personnel under COVID-19 conditions. This cross-sectional study was performed on 301 employees in two hospitals. Firstly, we identified the items affecting the contagion of biological agents. Then, we computed the weight of the items using the Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) method. We used the identified items and the estimated weights in the next step to develop a predictive equation. The outcome of this tool was the risk score of biological disease contagion. After that, we used the developed method to evaluate the biological risk of the participants. The ROC curve was also used to reveal accuracy of developed method. In this study, 29 items were identified and categorized into five dimensions, including environmental items, ventilation items, job items, equipment-related items, and organizational items. The weights of these dimensions were estimated at 0.172, 0.196, 0.255, 0.233, and 0.144, respectively. The final weight of items was used to develop a predictive equation. The area under ROC curves (AUC) was also calculated as 0.762 (95% CI: 0.704, 0.820) (p<0.001). The tools developed using these items had acceptable diagnostic accuracy for predicting the risk of biological diseases in health care. Therefore, one can apply it in identifying persons exposed to dangerous conditions.
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.