ArticleHeliyon2023
A network meta-analysis of risk factors of infection among close contacts of COVID-19.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk assessment of infection of COVID-19 contacts based on scenario simulation.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We aimed to use network meta-analysis to compare the impact of infection risk factors of close contacts with COVID-19, identify the most influential factors and rank their subgroups. It can provide a theoretical basis for the rapid and accurate tracking and management of close contacts. Methods: We searched nine databases from December 1, 2019 to August 2, 2023, which only took Chinese and English studies into consideration. Odd ratios (ORs) were calculated from traditional meta-estimated secondary attack rates (SARs) for different risk factors, and risk ranking of these risk factors was calculated by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: 25 studies with 152647 participants identified. Among all risk factors, the SUCRA of type of contact was 69.6 % and ranked first. Among six types of contact, compared with transportation contact, medical contact, social contact and other, daily contact increased risk of infection by 12.11 (OR: 12.11, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 6.51-22.55), 7.76 (OR: 7.76, 95 % CI: 4.09-14.73), 4.65 (OR: 4.65, 95 % CI: 2.66-8.51) and 8.23 OR: 8.23, 95 % CI: 4.23-16.01) times, respectively. Overall, SUCRA ranks from highest to lowest as daily contact (94.7 %), contact with pollution subjects (78.4 %), social contact (60.8 %), medical contact (31.8 %), other (27.9 %), transportation contact (6.4 %). Conclusion: The type of contact had the greatest impact on COVID-19 close contacts infection among the risk factors we included. Daily contact carried the greatest risk of infection among six types of contact, followed by contact with pollution subjects, social contact, other, medical contact and transportation contact. The results can provide scientific basis for rapid assess the risk of infection among close contacts based on fewer risk factors and pay attention to high-risk close contacts during management, thereby reducing tracking and management costs.
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.