ArticleBMJ open2022
Retrospective study of comparison of clinical severity and outcome of hospitalised COVID-19 patients during the first and second waves of the pandemic in India.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Clinical Profile of COVID-19 Patients Admitted at a Private Hospital During Three Surges in Mandalay, Myanmar.Cureus · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the clinical severity and outcome of hospitalised patients during the two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in India.
settingA tertiary care referral hospital in South India.
participantsSymptomatic SARS CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCR positive patients presenting to the emergency department during the two waves were recruited. The first wave spanned between April and December 2020 and the second wave between April and May 2021. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of interest was mortality. Secondary outcomes included illness severity at presentation, need for oxygen therapy, non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and hospital or intensive care unit admission.
resultsThe mean (SD) age of the 4971 hospitalised patients in the first wave was similar to the 2293 patients in the second wave (52.5±15.4 vs 52.1±15.1 years, p=0.37). When compared with the first wave, during the second wave, a higher proportion of patients presented with critical illness (11% vs 1.1%, p<0.001) and needed supplemental oxygen therapy (n=2092: 42.1% vs n=1459: 63.6%; p<0.001), NIV (n=643; 12.9% vs n=709; 30.9%; p<0.001) or inotropes/vasoactive drugs (n=108; 2.2% vs n=77: 3.4%; p=0.004). Mortality was higher during the second wave (19.2% vs 9.3%; p<0.001). On multivariable regression analysis, age >60 years (risk ratio, RR 2.80; 95% CI 2.12 to 3.70), D-dimer >1000 ng/mL (RR 1.34; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.55), treatment with supplemental oxygen (RR 14.6; 95% CI 8.98 to 23.6) and presentation during the second wave (RR 1.40; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.62) were independently associated with mortality.
conclusionThe second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in India appeared to be associated with more severe presentation and higher mortality when compared with the first wave. Increasing age, elevated D-dimer levels and treatment with supplemental oxygen were independent predictors of mortality.
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.