ArticleCureus2024
A Retrospective Observational Study Evaluating COVID-19 Mortality and Morbidity in a Rural ICU Among People Over and Under 65.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The literature surrounding COVID-19 mortality in the elderly compellingly leans towards the elderly faring worse. The populations of such literature often combined the rural and urban populations or simply discounted the rural population altogether. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this stigma is misplaced and that the elderly are not always at risk of the worst health outcomes. Method SARS-CoV-2-positive patients who were admitted to the ICU of Hatta Hospital were included in the study. They were split into two groups, those under and those over the age of 65. Percentage mortality, morbidity using Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), and duration of hospital admission were assessed in the two groups, and statistical analysis was performed. Results Seventy-two patients were deemed eligible for inclusion. Percentage mortality of the total population was 16.67% (N=12). In the under 65's arm the mortality percentage was 12.5% and the percentage mortality of the over 65's was 21.9% (N=7); chi-squared=1.13 (p=0.29). There was no statistical significance between mortality in the two arms. The global average time to discharge was 20.64 ± 1.98 days. The average time to discharge in the under-65's was 19.83± 2.64 days; the average time to discharge in the over-65 group was 21.66 ± 3.04 days; p= 0.65. The global average APACHE II score was 10.52 ± 0.77. The mean APACHE II score for the under 65's arm was 8.24 ± 0.95 while the mean APACHE II score for the over 65's was calculated at 13.2 ± 1.04: p=0.0008. Conclusion Overall, mortality was not significantly different, nor was their duration of stay. There was a significant difference in their morbidity; however, both groups had similar healthcare outcomes. The elderly did not face worse health outcomes than their younger counterparts. There is a gap in the literature discussing rural healthcare.
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.