ArticlePloS one2023
Contact tracing: Characteristics of COVID-19 cases that provided contacts.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Leveraging Multiple Administrative Data Sources to Reduce Missing Race and Ethnicity Data: A Descriptive Epidemiology Cross-Sectional Study of COVID-19 Case Relative Rates.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This cross-sectional study evaluated COVID-19 contact tracing efforts to identify variations in contact tracing outcomes in different population subgroups. Contact tracing was a critical tool to slow the COVID-19 epidemic. A literature gap evaluating contact tracing elicitation exits, particularly on prioritized groups. We analyzed data from COVID-19 cases linking statewide case management, immunization, laboratory testing, and hospitalization databases in New York State (NYS) outside of New York City from February 1 to November 30, 2021. Focus was cases in home-based residential settings (excluding congregate care) and prioritized groups (educational institutions, large households, close quarters, higher-risk persons, hospitalized). The primary outcome was completed interviews that provided a contact. Of the 550,850 cases interviewed during the study period, 316,645 (57.5%) provided at least one contact. Adults aged 18 to 49 years were most likely to provide contacts than those aged 65 years and older (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-1.45). Compared to unvaccinated cases, boosted individuals (aOR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.50-1.73) were most likely to provide contacts, followed by persons with only a primary vaccine series (aOR, 1.3; 95%CI, 1.28-1.33) and partially vaccinated (aOR, 1.21; 95%CI, 1.18-1.24). Repeat cases (aOR, 1.07; 95%CI, 1.01-1.14), pregnant persons (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1,19-1.34), those with underlying conditions (aOR 1.22; 95%CI, 1.20-1.23), and those in K-12 settings (aOR 1.55; 95%CI, 1.50-1.61) were more likely to provide contacts. There was no clear association between hospitalized, while zip code level income may (aOR, 1.006; 95%CI, 1.003, 1.009). Persons from larger households were more likely to provide contacts: aOR for two or more persons vs. one person households ranged from 2.49 to 4.7 (95%CI, 2.20-4.78). Our findings indicate success in eliciting contacts from prioritized groups and identify variable contact elicitation outcomes from different population groups. These results may serve as a tool for future contact tracing efforts.
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.