Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34862222›Full record

ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2021

'What is the risk to me from COVID-19?': Public involvement in providing mortality risk information for people with 'high-risk' conditions for COVID-19 (OurRisk.CoV).

Amitava Banerjee, Laura Pasea, Sinduja Manohar, Alvina G Lai, Eade Hemingway, Izaak Sofer, Michail Katsoulis, Harpreet Sood, Andrew Morris, Caroline Cake and 5 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Seeing what others see while thinking what others have not.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2021
    Article
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

15 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Amitava BanerjeeUniversity College London, London, UK, honorary consultant cardiologist, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK, and honorary consultant cardiologist, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK ami.banerjee@ucl.ac.uk.
Laura PaseaUniversity College London, London, UK.
Sinduja ManoharHealth Data Research UK, London, UK.
Alvina G LaiUniversity College London, London, UK, and associate, Health Data Research UK, London, UK.
Eade HemingwayFlourish, London, UK.
Izaak SoferAllBright, London, UK.
Michail KatsoulisUniversity College London, London, UK.
Harpreet SoodHealth Education England, London, UK, and general practitioner, Hurley Group Practice, London, UK.
Andrew MorrisHealth Data Research UK, London, UK.
Caroline CakeHealth Data Research UK, London, UK.
Natalie K FitzpatrickUniversity College London, London, UK, and associate, Health Data Research UK, London, UK.
Bryan WilliamsUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK, professor of medicine, University College London, London, UK, and director, UCL Hospitals NIHR Biomedical Research Centre.
Spiros DenaxasUniversity College London, London, UK, associate, Health Data Research UK, and research fellow, Alan Turing Institute, London, UK.
Harry HemingwayUniversity College London, London, UK, research director, Health Data Research UK, London, UK, and director of healthcare informatics, genomics/omics, data science, UCL Hospitals NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.
and members of the Health Data Research UK COVID-19 Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Panel
Health Data Research UK · GBUniversity College London · GBBarts Health NHS Trust · GBHealth Education England · GBTuring Institute · GBUCL Biomedical Research Centre · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0902393Medical Research Council MC_PC_13041Medical Research Council MR/K006584/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients and public have sought mortality risk information throughout the pandemic, but their needs may not be served by current risk prediction tools. Our mixed methods study involved: (1) systematic review of published risk tools for prognosis, (2) provision and patient testing of new mortality risk estimates for people with high-risk conditions and (3) iterative patient and public involvement and engagement with qualitative analysis. Only one of 53 (2%) previously published risk tools involved patients or the public, while 11/53 (21%) had publicly accessible portals, but all for use by clinicians and researchers.Among people with a wide range of underlying conditions, there has been sustained interest and engagement in accessible and tailored, pre- and postpandemic mortality information. Informed by patient feedback, we provide such information in 'five clicks' (https://covid19-phenomics.org/OurRiskCoV.html), as context for decision making and discussions with health professionals and family members. Further development requires curation and regular updating of NHS data and wider patient and public engagement.

Indexed as

COVID-19HumansPandemicsPrognosisSARS-CoV-2Surveys and Questionnairescoronavirusmortalitypatient and public involvementrisk information

Identifiers

PMID34862222
PMCPMC8806292
OpenAlexW3216041122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.