ArticleDeutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2023
[COVID 19 - Hospital Admission in the First and Second Wave in Germany].
Article in Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe analyzed patients' characteristics and hospital admission in Germany's first and second COVID 19 wave.
methodsWe include all patients hospitalized with the proven diagnosis COVID 19 admitted to the HELIOS Hospital Krefeld, Germany, in the first wave (n = 84; from 11.03.2020-30.06.2020) and the second wave (n = 344; from 01.07.2020-31.01.2021).
resultsPatients' age, gender and comorbidities were similar with the exception of venous thrombosis in medical history which was more frequent in the first wave (6 % vs 0.3 %, p = p = 0,001). At admission, there were no differences in the results of the initial lab values (c-reactive protein, leucocytes) and blood gas analyses between both groups. Treatment differed in the application of dexamethasone and anticoagulation. In the first wave, nobody received dexamethasone. However, this changed to 52.6 % of patients in the second wave for a mean length of 3.6 ± 4.1 days. Anticoagulation with double standard prophylaxis (2 × 40 mg low molecular heparin, subcutaneous) was applied in 7.1 % of patients in the first wave but 30.2 % (p = 0.002) in the second wave. In the first wave more thromboembolic events were diagnosed after admission (19.0 % vs 7.0 %, p = 0.001). In-hospital death was 26.2 % in the first wave and 15.4 % in the second wave (p = 0.0234). Most deaths were attributed to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
conclusionPatients' characteristics did not vary in Germany's first and second COVID 19 wave, but anticoagulation and dexamethasone were applied more frequently in the second wave. In addition, there were fewer thromboembolic complications in the second wave.
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.