ArticleLa Medicina del lavoro2024
Determinants of COVID-19 Infection Among Employees of an Italian Financial Institution.
Article in La Medicina del lavoro, 2024. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding the trend of the severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is becoming crucial. Previous studies focused on predicting COVID-19 trends, but few papers have considered models for disease estimation and progression based on large real-world data.
methodsWe used de-identified data from 60,938 employees of a major financial institution in Italy with daily COVID-19 status information between 31 March 2020 and 31 August 2021. We consider six statuses: (i) concluded case, (ii) confirmed case, (iii) close contact, (iv) possible-probable contact, (v) possible contact, and (vi) no-COVID-19 or infection. We conducted a logistic regression to assess the odds ratio (OR) of transition to confirmed COVID-19 case at each time point. We also fitted a general model for disease progression via the multi-state transition probability model at each time point, with lags of 7 and 15 days.
resultsEmployment in a branch versus in a central office was the strongest predictor of case or contact status, while no association was detected with gender or age. The geographic prevalence of possible-probable contacts and close contacts was predictive of the subsequent risk of confirmed cases. The status with the highest probability of becoming a confirmed case was concluded case (12%) in April 2020, possible-probable contact (16%) in November 2020, and close contact (4%) in August 2021. The model based on transition probabilities predicted well the rate of confirmed cases observed 7 or 15 days later.
conclusionData from industry-based surveillance systems may effectively predict the risk of subsequent infection.
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.