ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Ecological comparison of six countries in two waves of COVID-19.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. 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.
- Clinical Outcomes in Concurrent Cohorts of Elexacaftor/Tezacaftor/Ivacaftor (ELX/TEZ/IVA)-Treated versus ELX/TEZ/IVA-Ineligible Individuals with Cystic Fibrosis in the US during COVID-19.Pulmonary therapy · 2026Article
- Topological analysis of COVID-19 wave patterns and policy responses in Europe.Frontiers in public health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study is to provide experience and evidence support for countries to deal with similar public health emergencies such as COVID-19 by comparing and analyzing the measures taken by six countries in epidemic prevention and control. Methods: This study extracted public data on COVID-19 from the official website of various countries and used ecological comparative research methods to compare the specific situation of indicators such as daily tests per thousand people, stringency index, and total vaccinations per hundred people in countries. Results: The cumulative death toll in China, Germany and Australia was significantly lower than that in the United States, South Africa and Italy. Expanding the scale of testing has helped control the spread of the epidemic to some extent. When the epidemic situation is severe, the stringency index increases, and when the epidemic situation tends to ease, the stringency index decreases. Increased vaccination rates, while helping to build an immune barrier, still need to be used in conjunction with non-drug interventions. Conclusion: The implementation of non-drug interventions and vaccine measures greatly affected the epidemic prevention and control effect. In responding to public health emergencies such as the COVID-19 epidemic, countries should draw on international experience, closely align with their national conditions, follow the laws of epidemiology, actively take non-drug intervention measures, and vigorously promote vaccine research and development and vaccination.
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.