ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2025
A population-based case-control study of COVID-19: methodological considerations on the role of testing bias.
Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2025. 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTargeting people at risk of COVID-19 infection has been critical to containing the pandemic. Using only differences in cumulative incidence by sociodemographic groups can be misleading, as it reflects both factors related to infection risk and those related to testing for infection. The aim of this analysis was to disentangle the determinants of both mechanisms.
methodsWe compared the demographic, socioeconomic, and health characteristics of 813 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases over age 20 years with 1630 age- sex- and geography-matched population-based controls, both recruited in 2020-2021 in the RESPIRA study. We used antibody results and previous diagnosis to detect infections in population-based controls.
resultsHigh socioeconomic status and being older than 60 years old were negatively associated with seropositivity. Obesity and number of people living in the household were positively associated with seropositivity. Among infected (seropositive) people, diagnosis by PCR was more frequent in employees, and in people with asthma or hypertension, and was negatively associated with the number of people living in the household.
conclusionDifferences between PCR-confirmed cases and non-infected controls reflected differences both in risk of infection, and in PCR-testing in infected people. The possibility of PCR-testing bias in case-control studies of COVID should be considered in future research.
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.