ArticleInfectious diseases & clinical microbiology2024
Infection Risk Prediction in Healthcare Settings: Lessons from COVID-19 Contact Tracing.
Article in Infectious diseases & clinical microbiology, 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.
- Performance of predictive AI-based clinical decision support systems across clinical domains: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Contact tracing aids epidemic control by enabling early detection and isolation without overburdening healthcare systems despite potential challenges. This study aimed to evaluate the practical application of contact and risk assessment-based models in predicting SARS-CoV-2 infection following exposure among healthcare workers in a large tertiary public university hospital in Türkiye. Materials and Methods: The study was designed as a retrospective cohort study, including contact tracing data from 3389 exposed healthcare workers from March 23, 2020, to October 22, 2021. Contact-based (mask use, contact duration and distance) and exposure risk-assessment-based (low, medium, high-risk) models with and without having symptoms were generated using logistic regression. SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as having a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test result. Adjustments were made to the models for demographic and occupational variables, previous infection, and vaccination. Model parameters were compared. Results: Of 3389 exposed healthcare workers, 2451 underwent RT-PCR testing. Among those tested, RT-PCR positivity was 5.9% (144/2451). Lack of personal protective equipment use (odds ratio [OR]=1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.03-2.66) and ≥15 minutes of contact duration (1.89, 1.21-3.09) were significantly associated with RT-PCR positivity. In the risk-assessment model, being a high-risk contact increased the odds of RT-PCR positivity (OR=2.76, 95% CI=1.61-5.03). Adding the presence of symptoms to contact-based and risk assessment models improved model parameters (Akaike information criterion [AIC]: from 1086.1 to 1083.1; Tjur's R Conclusion: The inclusion of being symptomatic improved the contact-based and risk assessment-based models. Institutions should be encouraged to incorporate symptom inquiries into risk assessment protocols in response to newly emerging respiratory virus epidemics. Institutions lacking the capacity for extensive contact tracing are recommended, at minimum, to track symptomatic exposed workers for epidemic control.
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.