Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38155706›Full record

ArticleMultidisciplinary respiratory medicine2023

Outcomes comparison between the first and the subsequent SARS-CoV-2 waves - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Tulio Caldonazo, Ricardo E Treml, Felipe S L Vianna, Panagiotis Tasoudis, Hristo Kirov, Murat Mukharyamov, Torsten Doenst, João M Silva

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparative analysis of COVID-19 critically ill patients across four pandemic waves in Greece.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2025
    Article
  2. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Tulio CaldonazoDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Germany.
Ricardo E TremlDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Germany.
Felipe S L ViannaDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Panagiotis TasoudisDivision of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (NC), USA.
Hristo KirovDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Germany.
Murat MukharyamovDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Germany.
Torsten DoenstDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Germany.
João M SilvaDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Friedrich Schiller University Jena · DEUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, health care professionals dealing with COVID-19 had to rely exclusively on general supportive measures since specific treatments were unknown. The subsequent waves could be faced with new diagnostic and therapeutic tools ( Methods: Three databases were assessed. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), acute renal failure, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) implantation, mechanical ventilation time, hospital LOS, systemic thromboembolism, myocarditis and ventilator associated pneumonia. Results: A total of 25 studies with 126,153 patients were included. There was no significant difference for the primary endpoint (OR=0.94, 95% CI 0.83-1.07, p=0.35). The first wave group presented higher rates of ICU LOS (SMD= 0.23, 95% CI 0.11-0.35, p<0.01), acute renal failure (OR=1.71, 95% CI 1.36-2.15, p<0.01) and ECMO implantation (OR=1.64, 95% CI 1.06-2.52, p=0.03). The other endpoints did not show significant differences. Conclusions: The analysis suggests that the first wave group, when compared with the subsequent waves group, presented higher rates of ICU LOS, acute renal failure and ECMO implantation, without significant difference in in-hospital or ICU mortality, mechanical ventilation time, hospital LOS, systemic thromboembolism, myocarditis or ventilator- associated pneumonia.

Indexed as

COVID-19critical careextracorporeal membrane oxygenationSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID38155706
PMCPMC10690722
OpenAlexW4388231682

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.