ArticleHealth science reports2021
Characteristics and definitive outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to a secondary hospital intensive care unit in Sweden.
Article in Health science reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associations between diagnoses linked with adverse COVID-19-related outcomes and sickness absence due to COVID-19 or COVID-19 like diagnoses: a prospective Swedish cohort study of 292 274 blue-collar workers in the retail and wholesale industry.European journal of public health · 2025Article
- Frailty and comorbidity in COVID-19 patients with and without ICU admission restrictions: a retrospective observational study.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2025Article
- Association of vasopressors with mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Anesthesiology and perioperative science · 2023Review
- Characteristics and definitive outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to a secondary hospital intensive care unit in Sweden.Health science reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsMost published reports of COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients are from large tertiary hospitals and often present short-term or incomplete outcome data. There are reports indicating that ICUs with fewer beds are associated with higher mortality. This study aimed to investigate the definitive outcome and patient characteristics of the complete first wave of COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU in a secondary hospital.
methodsIn this prospective observational study, all patients with respiratory failure and a positive SARS-CoV-2 test admitted to Västerås Hospital ICU between 24 March and July 22, 2020 were included. The primary outcome was defined as 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, number of days with invasive ventilation, need for vasopressors/inotropes, and use of renal replacement therapy.
resultsFifty-three patients were included. Median age (range) was 59 (33-76) and 74% were men. Obesity and hypertension were the most common comorbidities and 45% of the patients were born outside Europe. Ninety-day mortality was 30%. Median ICU length of stay (interquartile range) was 14 (5-24) days and the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation 16 (12-26) days. No patients received dialysis at 90-day follow-up.
conclusionIn this cohort of COVID-19 patients treated in a secondary hospital ICU, mortality rates were low compared to early studies from China, Italy, and the United States, but similar to other government-funded hospitals in Scandinavia. A preparatory reorganization enabled an increase in ICU capacity, hence avoiding an overwhelmed intensive care organization.
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.