Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27170999›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

Global Variability in Reported Mortality for Critical Illness during the 2009-10 Influenza A(H1N1) Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression to Guide Reporting of Outcomes during Disease Outbreaks.

Abhijit Duggal, Ruxandra Pinto, Gordon Rubenfeld, Robert A Fowler

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Influenza Therapeutics in Clinical Practice-Challenges and Recent Advances.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2021
    Review
  13. Observational
  14. Critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Tokyo, Japan: A single-center case series.Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy · 2021
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. COVID-19 Global Risk: Expectation vs. Reality.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Preparing intensive care for the next pandemic influenza.Critical care (London, England) · 2019
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Abhijit DuggalInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4220-2359
Ruxandra PintoTrauma, Emergency and Critical Care Program, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gordon RubenfeldInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Robert A FowlerInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine how patient, healthcare system and study-specific factors influence reported mortality associated with critical illness during the 2009-2010 Influenza A (H1N1) pandemic.

methodsSystematic review with meta-regression of studies reporting on mortality associated with critical illness during the 2009-2010 Influenza A (H1N1) pandemic. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, LiLACs and African Index Medicus to June 2009-March 2016.

results226 studies from 50 countries met our inclusion criteria. Mortality associated with H1N1-related critical illness was 31% (95% CI 28-34). Reported mortality was highest in South Asia (61% [95% CI 50-71]) and Sub-Saharan Africa (53% [95% CI 29-75]), in comparison to Western Europe (25% [95% CI 22-30]), North America (25% [95% CI 22-27]) and Australia (15% [95% CI 13-18]) (P<0.0001). High income economies had significantly lower reported mortality compared to upper middle income economies and lower middle income economies respectively (P<0.0001). Mortality for the first wave was non-significantly higher than wave two (P = 0.66). There was substantial variability in reported mortality among the specific subgroups of patients: unselected critically ill adults (27% [95% CI 24-30]), acute respiratory distress syndrome (37% [95% CI 32-44]), acute kidney injury (44% [95% CI 26-64]), and critically ill pregnant patients (10% [95% CI 5-19]).

conclusionReported mortality for outbreaks and pandemics may vary substantially depending upon selected patient characteristics, the number of patients described, and the region and economic status of the outbreak location. Outcomes from a relatively small number of patients from specific regions may lead to biased estimates of outcomes on a global scale.

Indexed as

InternationalityResearch ReportAdultAge FactorsCritical IllnessDisease OutbreaksFemaleGeographyHumansInfluenza A Virus, H1N1 SubtypeInfluenza, HumanIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsPublication Bias

Identifiers

PMID27170999
PMCPMC4865181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.