Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32422204›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Infectious diseases2020

Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 among patients in the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre primary care network: a cross-sectional study.

Simon de Lusignan, Jienchi Dorward, Ana Correa, Nicholas Jones, Oluwafunmi Akinyemi, Gayatri Amirthalingam, Nick Andrews, Rachel Byford, Gavin Dabrera, Alex Elliot and 12 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 352 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
352citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
50.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

352 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 665 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

292 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Simon de LusignanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre, London, UK. Electronic address: simon.delusignan@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Jienchi DorwardNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Ana CorreaInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK; Section of Clinical Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Nicholas JonesNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Oluwafunmi AkinyemiNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Gayatri AmirthalingamPublic Health England, London, UK.
Nick AndrewsPublic Health England, London, UK.
Rachel ByfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Gavin DabreraPublic Health England, London, UK.
Alex ElliotPublic Health England, London, UK.
Joanna EllisPublic Health England, London, UK.
Filipa FerreiraNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jamie Lopez BernalPublic Health England, London, UK.
Cecilia OkusiNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Mary RamsayPublic Health England, London, UK.
Julian SherlockNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Gillian SmithPublic Health England, London, UK.
John WilliamsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Gary HowsamRoyal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre, London, UK.
Maria ZambonPublic Health England, London, UK.
Mark JoyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
F D Richard HobbsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBPublic Health England · GBCentre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa · ZARoyal College of General Practitioners · GBUniversity of Surrey · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 212763/Z/18/ZWellcome Trust 216421/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are few primary care studies of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to identify demographic and clinical risk factors for testing positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre primary care network.

methodsWe analysed routinely collected, pseudonymised data for patients in the RCGP Research and Surveillance Centre primary care sentinel network who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 between Jan 28 and April 4, 2020. We used multivariable logistic regression models with multiple imputation to identify risk factors for positive SARS-CoV-2 tests within this surveillance network.

findingsWe identified 3802 SARS-CoV-2 test results, of which 587 were positive. In multivariable analysis, male sex was independently associated with testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (296 [18·4%] of 1612 men vs 291 [13·3%] of 2190 women; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·55, 95% CI 1·27-1·89). Adults were at increased risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared with children, and people aged 40-64 years were at greatest risk in the multivariable model (243 [18·5%] of 1316 adults aged 40-64 years vs 23 [4·6%] of 499 children; adjusted OR 5·36, 95% CI 3·28-8·76). Compared with white people, the adjusted odds of a positive test were greater in black people (388 [15·5%] of 2497 white people vs 36 [62·1%] of 58 black people; adjusted OR 4·75, 95% CI 2·65-8·51). People living in urban areas versus rural areas (476 [26·2%] of 1816 in urban areas vs 111 [5·6%] of 1986 in rural areas; adjusted OR 4·59, 95% CI 3·57-5·90) and in more deprived areas (197 [29·5%] of 668 in most deprived vs 143 [7·7%] of 1855 in least deprived; adjusted OR 2·03, 95% CI 1·51-2·71) were more likely to test positive. People with chronic kidney disease were more likely to test positive in the adjusted analysis (68 [32·9%] of 207 with chronic kidney disease vs 519 [14·4%] of 3595 without; adjusted OR 1·91, 95% CI 1·31-2·78), but there was no significant association with other chronic conditions in that analysis. We found increased odds of a positive test among people who are obese (142 [20·9%] of 680 people with obesity vs 171 [13·2%] of 1296 normal-weight people; adjusted OR 1·41, 95% CI 1·04-1·91). Notably, active smoking was linked with decreased odds of a positive test result (47 [11·4%] of 413 active smokers vs 201 [17·9%] of 1125 non-smokers; adjusted OR 0·49, 95% CI 0·34-0·71).

interpretationA positive SARS-CoV-2 test result in this primary care cohort was associated with similar risk factors as observed for severe outcomes of COVID-19 in hospital settings, except for smoking. We provide evidence of potential sociodemographic factors associated with a positive test, including deprivation, population density, ethnicity, and chronic kidney disease.

fundingWellcome Trust.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusAdolescentAdultAgedAge FactorsBlack PeopleChildChild, PreschoolCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFemaleHumansInfantMale

Identifiers

PMID32422204
PMCPMC7228715
OpenAlexW3025271482

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.