Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36368977›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2022

Evaluating methodological approaches to assess the severity of infection with SARS-CoV-2 variants: scoping review and applications on Belgian COVID-19 data.

Marjan Meurisse, Herman Van Oyen, Koen Blot, Lucy Catteau, Ben Serrien, Sofieke Klamer, Emilie Cauët, Annie Robert, Nina Van Goethem

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Over time analysis of the codon usage of SARS-CoV-2 and its variants.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors.

Marjan MeurisseDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium. Marjan.Meurisse@sciensano.be.
Herman Van OyenDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.
Koen BlotDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.
Lucy CatteauDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.
Ben SerrienDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.
Sofieke KlamerDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.
Emilie CauëtDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.
Annie Robert *IREC - EPID, Université Catholique de Louvain, Bruxelles, Belgium.
Nina Van Goethem *Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDifferences in the genetic material of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants may result in altered virulence characteristics. Assessing the disease severity caused by newly emerging variants is essential to estimate their impact on public health. However, causally inferring the intrinsic severity of infection with variants using observational data is a challenging process on which guidance is still limited. We describe potential limitations and biases that researchers are confronted with and evaluate different methodological approaches to study the severity of infection with SARS-CoV-2 variants.

methodsWe reviewed the literature to identify limitations and potential biases in methods used to study the severity of infection with a particular variant. The impact of different methodological choices is illustrated by using real-world data of Belgian hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

resultsWe observed different ways of defining coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease severity (e.g., admission to the hospital or intensive care unit versus the occurrence of severe complications or death) and exposure to a variant (e.g., linkage of the sequencing or genotyping result with the patient data through a unique identifier versus categorization of patients based on time periods). Different potential selection biases (e.g., overcontrol bias, endogenous selection bias, sample truncation bias) and factors fluctuating over time (e.g., medical expertise and therapeutic strategies, vaccination coverage and natural immunity, pressure on the healthcare system, affected population groups) according to the successive waves of COVID-19, dominated by different variants, were identified. Using data of Belgian hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we were able to document (i) the robustness of the analyses when using different variant exposure ascertainment methods, (ii) indications of the presence of selection bias and (iii) how important confounding variables are fluctuating over time.

conclusionsWhen estimating the unbiased marginal effect of SARS-CoV-2 variants on the severity of infection, different strategies can be used and different assumptions can be made, potentially leading to different conclusions. We propose four best practices to identify and reduce potential bias introduced by the study design, the data analysis approach, and the features of the underlying surveillance strategies and data infrastructure.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2BelgiumHumansIntensive Care UnitsBelgiumBiasCausal inferenceCOVID-19SARS-CoV-2 variantsSurveillanceVirulence

Identifiers

PMID36368977
PMCPMC9651100

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.