ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2023
Risk prediction of covid-19 related death or hospital admission in adults testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the omicron wave in England (QCOVID4): cohort study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals with sickle cell disease: an integrative review.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Development and Validation of an Electronic Health Record-Derived Prediction Model for Preventing COVID-19 Hospitalization and Death.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026Article
- The impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on primary care contact among vulnerable populations in England: a controlled interrupted time-series study.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Risk factors for severe COVID-19 and development of a predictive model.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- Plasma Proteomic Profiling Yields a High-Performance Biomarker Panel for Predicting a Poor Prognosis in Patients with COVID-19.Journal of proteome research · 2025Article
- Is COVID-19 Still a Threat? An Expert Opinion Review on the Continued Healthcare Burden in Immunocompromised Individuals.Advances in therapy · 2025Review
- Health disparities in complicated lower respiratory tract infections: a population-based cohort study in The Hague, The Netherlands.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Observational
- Impact of COVID-19 vaccines in patients on hemodialysis: an Italian multicentre cohort study.Journal of nephrology · 2024Article
- Article
- Development and validation of a scoring system to predict the mortality of hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron: a nationwide, multicentre study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2024Article
- Deviation from the recommended schedule: optimal dosing interval for a two-dose vaccination programme.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Comparative effectiveness of sotrovimab versus no treatment in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 patients in north west London: a retrospective cohort study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2024Article
- Divergent performance of vaccines in the UK autumn 2023 COVID-19 booster campaign.Lancet (London, England) · 2024Article
- Association Between Artificial Intelligence Based Chest Computed Tomography and Clinical/Laboratory Characteristics with Severity and Mortality in COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients.Journal of inflammation research · 2024Article
- sTREM-1 as a Predictive Biomarker for Disease Severity and Prognosis in COVID-19 Patients.Journal of inflammation research · 2024Article
- Prediction models of COVID-19 fatality in nine Peruvian provinces: A secondary analysis of the national epidemiological surveillance system.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Risk of death in England following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test: A retrospective national cohort study (March 2020 to September 2022).PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo derive and validate risk prediction algorithms (QCOVID4) to estimate the risk of covid-19 related death and hospital admission in people with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result during the period when the omicron variant of the virus was predominant in England, and to evaluate performance compared with a high risk cohort from NHS Digital.
designCohort study.
settingQResearch database linked to English national data on covid-19 vaccinations, SARS-CoV-2 test results, hospital admissions, and cancer and mortality data, 11 December 2021 to 31 March 2022, with follow-up to 30 June 2022.
participants1.3 million adults in the derivation cohort and 0.15 million adults in the validation cohort, aged 18-100 years, with a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection.
main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was covid-19 related death and secondary outcome was hospital admission for covid-19. Risk equations with predictor variables were derived from models fitted in the derivation cohort. Performance was evaluated in a separate validation cohort.
resultsOf 1 297 922 people with a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the derivation cohort, 18 756 (1.5%) had a covid-19 related hospital admission and 3878 (0.3%) had a covid-19 related death during follow-up. The final QCOVID4 models included age, deprivation score and a range of health and sociodemographic factors, number of covid-19 vaccinations, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The risk of death related to covid-19 was lower among those who had received a covid-19 vaccine, with evidence of a dose-response relation (42% risk reduction associated with one vaccine dose and 92% reduction with four or more doses in men). Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a reduction in the risk of covid-19 related death (49% reduction in men). The QCOVID4 algorithm for covid-19 explained 76.0% (95% confidence interval 73.9% to 78.2%) of the variation in time to covid-19 related death in men with a D statistic of 3.65 (3.43 to 3.86) and Harrell's C statistic of 0.970 (0.962 to 0.979). Results were similar for women. QCOVID4 was well calibrated. QCOVID4 was substantially more efficient than the NHS Digital algorithm for correctly identifying patients at high risk of covid-19 related death. Of the 461 covid-19 related deaths in the validation cohort, 333 (72.2%) were in the QCOVID4 high risk group and 95 (20.6%) in the NHS Digital high risk group.
conclusionThe QCOVID4 risk algorithm, modelled from data during the period when the omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was predominant in England, now includes vaccination dose and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and predicted covid-19 related death among people with a positive test result. QCOVID4 more accurately identified individuals at the highest levels of absolute risk for targeted interventions than the approach adopted by NHS Digital. QCOVID4 performed well and could be used for targeting treatments for covid-19 disease.
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.