Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35997587›Full record

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.

Alessia Verduri, Roxanna Short, Ben Carter, Philip Braude, Arturo Vilches-Moraga, Terence J Quinn, Jemima Collins, Jane Lumsden, Kathryn McCarthy, Louis Evans and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

13 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Alessia VerduriRespiratory Unit, Hospital Policlinico Modena, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Roxanna ShortForensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Ben CarterDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0318-8865
Philip BraudeDepartment of Surgery and Care of the Elderly, Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2936-8805
Arturo Vilches-MoragaAgeing and Complex Medicine Department, Salford Royal NHS Trust, Manchester, UK.
Terence J QuinnInstitute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Jemima CollinsCardiff and Vale UHB, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK.
Jane LumsdenInstitute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Kathryn McCarthyDepartment of Surgery and Care of the Elderly, Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Louis EvansYsbyty Gwynedd Hospital, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Bangor, UK.
Phyo K MyintInstitute of Applied Health Science, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3852-6158
Jonathan HewittCardiff and Vale UHB, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7924-1792
COPE Study Team
University of Glasgow · GBKing's College London · GBCardiff and Vale University Health Board · GBNorth Bristol NHS Trust · GBBetsi Cadwaladr University Health Board · GBSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Modena and Reggio Emilia · IT

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19AgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesC-Reactive ProteinDisease OutbreaksFemaleHumansMaleC-Reactive Protein

Identifiers

PMID35997587
PMCPMC9452163
OpenAlexW4292723308

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.