Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34882700›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Risk factors for excess all-cause mortality during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England: A retrospective cohort study of primary care data.

Iain M Carey, Derek G Cook, Tess Harris, Stephen DeWilde, Umar A R Chaudhry, David P Strachan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Iain M CareyPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1099-8460
Derek G CookPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Tess HarrisPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8671-1553
Stephen DeWildePopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Umar A R ChaudhryPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2618-9257
David P StrachanPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
St George's, University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic's first wave in England during spring 2020 resulted in an approximate 50% increase in all-cause mortality. Previously, risk factors such as age and ethnicity, were identified by studying COVID-related deaths only, but these were under-recorded during this period.

objectiveTo use a large electronic primary care database to estimate the impact of risk factors (RFs) on excess mortality in England during the first wave, compared with the impact on total mortality during 2015-19.

methodsMedical history, ethnicity, area-based deprivation and vital status data were extracted for an average of 4.8 million patients aged 30-104 years, for each year between 18-March and 19-May over a 6-year period (2015-2020). We used Poisson regression to model total mortality adjusting for age and sex, with interactions between each RF and period (pandemic vs. 2015-19). Total mortality during the pandemic was partitioned into "usual" and "excess" components, assuming 2015-19 rates represented "usual" mortality. The association of each RF with the 2020 "excess" component was derived as the excess mortality ratio (EMR), and compared with the usual mortality ratio (UMR).

resultsRFs where excess mortality was greatest and notably higher than usual were age >80, non-white ethnicity (e.g., black vs. white EMR = 2.50, 95%CI 1.97-3.18; compared to UMR = 0.92, 95%CI 0.85-1.00), BMI>40, dementia, learning disability, severe mental illness, place of residence (London, care-home, most deprived). By contrast, EMRs were comparable to UMRs for sex. Although some co-morbidities such as cancer produced EMRs significantly below their UMRs, the EMRs were still >1. In contrast current smoking has an EMR below 1 (EMR = 0.80, 95%CI 0.65-0.98) compared to its UMR = 1.64.

conclusionsStudying risk factors for excess mortality during the pandemic highlighted differences from studying cause-specific mortality. Our approach illustrates a novel methodology for evaluating a pandemic's impact by individual risk factor without requiring cause-specific mortality data.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCause of DeathComorbidityCOVID-19Databases, FactualEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID34882700
PMCPMC8659693
OpenAlexW4200122476

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.