ArticleMedical sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic on the Prevalence and Incidence of Enteric Protozoa in a Spanish Tertiary-Care Hospital and a Referral Center for Tropical Diseases, 2019-2023.
Article in Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
- Gastrointestinal pathogens in paediatric patients with diarrhoea during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain: a multicentre molecular-based prospective study.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Impact of COVID-19 restrictions on incidence of gastrointestinal protozoal infections in Mexico and their association with environmental and socioeconomic risk factors.Parasite (Paris, France) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objetiveThe aim of this study was to describe the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with symptoms of enteric protozoa (EP), including
methodData on patients with positive RT-PCR results for EP were collected. The periods analyzed were prepandemic (P0, 1 April 2019-31 March 2020), and the first (P1, 1 April 2020-31 March 2021), second (P2, 1 April 2021-31 March 2022), and third (P3, 1 April 2022-31 March 2023) pandemic years. We compared the prevalence, median age, absolute incidence (EP per 100,000 population of each period), and patient profile (NRCITD vs. non-NRCITD) during the study periods using Fisher's test (
resultsDuring P0, 24.8%, [95% CI: 23.9-25.6] of patients tested for EP RT-PCR were positive, 22.6% [95% CI: 21.5-23.7] were positive in P1, 20.4%, [95% CI: 19.5-21.3] were positive during P2, and 20% [95% CI: 19.2-20.9] of patients tested during P3 were positive. During the study, there was no difference in the median ages. The prevalence and absolute incidence of EP showed a decreasing trend during the pandemic for the NRCITD and non-NRCITD patients (
conclusion
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.