ArticleAcademic pediatrics2024
Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Childhood Lead Testing and Blood Lead Levels.
Article in Academic pediatrics, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Take the Lead on Lead: Feasibility of a Telemedicine-Based Clinic for Lead Poisoning Prevention and Management.Academic pediatrics · 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
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on childhood lead testing and blood lead levels.
methodsA retrospective analysis of lead tests and results was performed across 3 urban medical centers during the pre-COVID-19 (March 10, 2019-March 9, 2020) and COVID-19 (March 10, 2020-March 10, 2022) periods. Interrupted time series analysis with quasi-Poisson regression was used to evaluate changes in lead testing between study periods. The relationship between sociodemographic features with detectable (≧2 µg/dL) and elevated (≧3.5 µg/dL) blood lead levels (BLLs) was assessed with multivariable logistic regression.
resultsAmong a total of 16,364 lead tests across 10,362 patients, weekly testing rates significantly decreased during COVID-19 (relative risk (RR) 0.64, 95% (confidence interval) CI 0.53-0.78). Census tracts with the greatest proportion of pre-1950s housing had a stronger association with detectable BLLs during the COVID-19 period (pre-COVID-19 adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.73, 95% CI 1.35-2.20; aOR 2.58, 95% CI 2.13-3.12; interaction P value .014). When limited to 1 year following COVID-19 (March 10, 2020-March 10, 2021), the association between both elevated BLLs (pre-COVID-19: aOR 1.49, 95% CI 0.87-2.53; COVID-19: aOR 3.51, 95% CI 1.98-6.25; interaction P value .032) and detectable BLLs with pre-1950s housing were greater during the COVID-19 period (pre-COVID-19: aOR 1.73, 95% CI 1.35-2.20; COVID-19: aOR 2.56, 95% CI 1.95-3.34; interaction P value .034).
conclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant reduction in lead surveillance and magnified the effect of known risk factors for lead exposure. Concerted clinical, public health, and community advocacy are needed to address care gaps and excess cases of lead poisoning.
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.