ArticleHeliyon2024
Analysis of the effectiveness of hygiene measures and COVID-19 vaccination at a tertiary-care university hospital during the first two years of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
Article in Heliyon, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Assessment of the effectiveness of protective measures at a tertiary-care hospital during the SARS-CoV-2 infection waves to provide advice for future pandemics. Design: Retrospective cohort study among hospital staff using in-house surveillance data. Setting: University Hospital Erlangen (UKER), a tertiary-care provider in Bavaria, Germany. Methods: We outline the preventive measures introduced at UKER and retrospectively assess their effectiveness using anonymized monitoring data that were collected during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic from February 2020 to the end of January 2022. Analysed data includes the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections among employees, the frequency of high-risk contacts with infected patients or staff members and breakthrough infections considering the context of exposure. Results: The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections among UKER employees was higher before, but lower after the vaccination campaign when compared to the general population. Healthcare workers (HCW), notably physicians and nurses, were especially at risk of infection compared to other UKER employees with less direct patient contact (OR 1.36 [95% CI 1.18-1.57 p < 0.001]). Breakthrough infections mostly occurred after exposure during private life, i.e. in situations without protective equipment. The frequency of high-risk contacts during direct patient care remained stable after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Prior to vaccination, 5.2% of HCW with direct patient care tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 14 days. After vaccination until the onset of the Omicron wave, conversion rate dropped to 0%. Conclusions: This study provides real-world data on the effectiveness of vaccination, contact tracing, personal protective equipment and general hygiene measures during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Based on our findings, we recommend a protective approach combining all these preventive measures.
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.