Observational studyEuropean journal of public health2022
Comparison between first and second wave of COVID-19 outbreak in older people: the COPE multicentre European observational cohort study.
Observational study in European journal of public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Postpandemic Change in Demographic and Clinical Features of Patients With Omicron Who Were Hospitalized: Territory-Wide Retrospective Repeated Cross-Sectional Study in Hong Kong.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparing Care Pathways Between COVID-19 Pandemic Waves Using Electronic Health Records: A Process Mining Case Study.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2025Article
- The prognostic value of Clinical Frailty Scale in COVID-19 pneumonia across different pandemic phases: a comparison between the first and the fourth wave.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Comorbidity patterns associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes: A cohort study based on the UK Biobank.PloS one · 2025Article
- Age Differences and Prevalence of Comorbidities for Death and Survival in Patients with COVID-19: A Single-Center Observational Study in a Region of Southern Italy.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Impact of COVID-19 on patient experience of kidney care: a rapid review.Journal of nephrology · 2024Review
- Analysis and clinical determinants of post-COVID-19 syndrome in the Lombardy region: evidence from a longitudinal cohort study.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Difference in presentation, outcomes, and hospital epidemiologic trend of COVID-19 among first, second, and third waves: a review of hospital records and prospective cohort study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
- Comparative Study of the Myocardium of Patients from Four COVID-19 Waves.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Successive Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic Had an Increasing Impact on Chronic Cardiovascular Patients in a Western Region of Romania.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Familial Hypercholesterolemia Patients with COVID-19-Effective Cholesterol-Lowering Therapy is Urgent both during and after Infection.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEffective shielding measures and virus mutations have progressively modified the disease between the waves, likewise healthcare systems have adapted to the outbreak. Our aim was to compare clinical outcomes for older people with COVID-19 in Wave 1 (W1) and Wave 2 (W2).
methodsAll data, including the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), were collected for COVID-19 consecutive patients, aged ≥65, from 13 hospitals, in W1 (February-June 2020) and W2 (October 2020-March 2021). The primary outcome was mortality (time to mortality and 28-day mortality). Data were analysed with multilevel Cox proportional hazards, linear and logistic regression models, adjusted for wave baseline demographic and clinical characteristics.
resultsData from 611 people admitted in W2 were added to and compared with data collected during W1 (N = 1340). Patients admitted in W2 were of similar age, median (interquartile range), W2 = 79 (73-84); W1 = 80 (74-86); had a greater proportion of men (59.4% vs. 53.0%); had lower 28-day mortality (29.1% vs. 40.0%), compared to W1. For combined W1-W2 sample, W2 was independently associated with improved survival: time-to-mortality adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.93], 28-day mortality adjusted odds ratio = 0.80 (95% CI 0.62-1.03). W2 was associated with increased length of hospital stay aHR = 0.69 (95% CI 0.59-0.81). Patients in W2 were less frail, CFS [adjusted mean difference (aMD) = -0.50, 95% CI -0.81, -0.18], as well as presented with lower C-reactive protein (aMD = -22.52, 95% CI -32.00, -13.04).
conclusionsCOVID-19 older adults in W2 were less likely to die than during W1. Patients presented to hospital during W2 were less frail and with lower disease severity and less likely to have renal decline.
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.