ArticleBMC public health2023
Time-sensitive testing pressures and COVID-19 outcomes: are socioeconomic inequalities over the first year of the pandemic explained by selection bias?
Article 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.
- Coronavirus-two infection among adults: A scoping review of literature published in 2023-24.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere are many ways in which selection bias might impact COVID-19 research. Here we focus on selection for receiving a polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) SARS-CoV-2 test and how known changes to selection pressures over time may bias research into COVID-19 infection.
methodsUsing UK Biobank (N = 420,231; 55% female; mean age = 66.8 [SD = 8·11]) we estimate the association between socio-economic position (SEP) and (i) being tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection versus not being tested (ii) testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection versus testing negative and (iii) testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection versus not being tested. We construct four distinct time-periods between March 2020 and March 2021, representing distinct periods of testing pressures and lockdown restrictions and specify both time-stratified and combined models for each outcome. We explore potential selection bias by examining associations with positive and negative control exposures.
resultsThe association between more disadvantaged SEP and receiving a SARS-CoV-2 test attenuated over time. Compared to individuals with a degree, individuals whose highest educational qualification was a GCSE or equivalent had an OR of 1·27 (95% CI: 1·18 to 1·37) in March-May 2020 and 1·13 (95% CI: 1.·10 to 1·16) in January-March 2021. The magnitude of the association between educational attainment and testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection increased over the same period. For the equivalent comparison, the OR for testing positive increased from 1·25 (95% CI: 1·04 to 1·47), to 1·69 (95% CI: 1·55 to 1·83). We found little evidence of an association between control exposures, and any considered outcome.
conclusionsThe association between SEP and SARS-CoV-2 testing changed over time, highlighting the potential of time-specific selection pressures to bias analyses of COVID-19. Positive and negative control analyses suggest that changes in the association between SEP and SARS-CoV-2 infection over time likely reflect true increases in socioeconomic inequalities.
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.