Observational studyInfection2022
Was Alpha deadlier than wild-type COVID? Analysis in rural England.
Observational study in Infection, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outpatient pediatric care during the COVID-19 pandemic, Almaty, Kazakhstan 2021-2022.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Identifying Mortality Predictors in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Insights from a Single-Center Retrospective Study at a University Hospital.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Variant-specific deleterious mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 genome reveal immune responses and potentials for prophylactic vaccine development.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIt is useful to document whether each newly dominant SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern was more or less dangerous than preceding dominant variant(s). We assessed if the emergence of the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant in autumn 2020 could be linked to higher case fatality rates, compared to original wild-type COVID-19, subgrouping by age band, sex, deprivation or month of diagnosis as potential risk factors.
methodsObservational study and secondary analysis were conducted of SARS-CoV-2 cases diagnosed due to medical need or occupational exposure in an administrative area of Eastern England, UK (base population 1 million), who first tested positive in the period 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2021. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to examine relationships of age group, sex, deprivation group and month of diagnosis with case fatality rates within 28 days of diagnosis. Marginal probabilities for risk of dying were calculated separately for the first two main 'wave' periods of the English pandemic.
resultsOlder age and male sex consistently raised the risk of mortality in both wave periods. Higher deprivation was linked to mortality risk in the first wave period, but not in the second wave. Mortality decreased over time during the first wave period, but slightly increased over time during the second wave. Cases were younger in the second wave, and median age of the deceased varied little between waves.
interpretationThe Alpha variant of SARS-CoV-2 did not lead to higher mortality rates for any age, deprivation or sex group, compared to case fatality rates in the early part of the pandemic period.
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.