ArticleBMC infectious diseases2021
The differential demographic pattern of coronavirus disease 2019 fatality outside Hubei and from six hospitals in Hubei, China: a descriptive analysis.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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.
- Evaluating the effectiveness of control measures in multiple regions during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.Biosafety and health · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic has been largely controlled in China, to the point where case fatality rate (CFR) data can be comprehensively evaluated.
methodsData on confirmed patients, with a final outcome reported as of 29 March 2020, were obtained from official websites and other internet sources. The hospitalized CFR (HCFR) was estimated, epidemiological features described, and risk factors for a fatal outcome identified.
resultsThe overall HCFR in China was estimated to be 4.6% (95% CI 4.5-4.8%, P < 0.001). It increased with age and was higher in males than females. Although the highest HCFR observed was in male patients ≥70 years old, the relative risks for death outcome by sex varied across age groups, and the greatest HCFR risk ratio for males vs. females was shown in the age group of 50-60 years, higher than age groups of 60-70 and ≥ 70 years. Differential age/sex HCFR patterns across geographical regions were found: the age effect on HCFR was greater in other provinces outside Hubei than in Wuhan. An effect of longer interval from symptom onset to admission was only observed outside Hubei, not in Wuhan. By performing multivariate analysis and survival analysis, the higher HCFR was associated with older age (both P < 0.001), and male sex (both P < 0.001). Only in regions outside Hubei, longer interval from symptom onset to admission, were associated with higher HCFR.
conclusionsThis up-to-date and comprehensive picture of COVID-19 HCFR and its drivers will help healthcare givers target limited medical resources to patients with high risk of fatality.
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.