ArticleJournal of epidemiology and global health2021
Ecological Study on Differences in COVID-19 Fatality among Wuhan, Rest of Hubei, and Rest of China.
Article in Journal of epidemiology and global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Manifestations and Outcomes of Intracerebral Hemorrhage During the COVID-19 Pandemic in China: Multicenter, Longitudinal Cohort Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChina's vigorous anti-COVID-19 campaign has been going on for three months since January 20, which has contained the spread of the virus across China.
objectivesEpidemiological investigations found that COVID-19 fatality rates in Wuhan, rest parts of Hubei province except Wuhan (Rest of Hubei) and rest parts of Mainland China except Hubei province (Rest of China) were different. An ecological study was conducted to analyze the reasons and provide the world with China's anti-COVID-19 epidemic experiences.
methodsInfected cases from Mainland China were divided into three populations: Wuhan, Rest of Hubei and Rest of China. Methods were based on
results50,333 total confirmed cases in Wuhan made up the most substantial part by comparison with 17,795 in Rest of Hubei and 14,630 in Rest of China, respectively. In the early stage of the COVID-19 epidemic, daily severe cases in Wuhan accounted for the majority, and as the epidemic controlled, severe cases in all three populations decreased. Total deaths in Wuhan constituted the most significant proportion, with the highest 3869 in contrast to 643 in Rest of Hubei and 120 in Rest of China. The fatality rates in Wuhan ranged from 2.82% to 7.69%, much higher than 1.80-3.61% in Rest of Hubei, and 0.49-0.88% in Rest of China. Pearson chi-square test for fatality rates in the three populations demonstrated significant differences (
conclusionThe ecological comparison study among the three populations have proved that social distancing, quarantine, lockdown, cutting off sources of infection and transmission routes, early detection, early isolation, early treatment are all vital to control the epidemic by reducing COVID-19 confirmed cases, severe cases and the fatality rate.
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.