ArticlePloS one2025
Classifying COVID-19 hospitalizations in epidemiology cohort studies: The C4R study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associations of Pre-Pandemic CKD With Acute and Post-Acute COVID-19: The C4R Study.American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation · 2026Article
- COVID-19-Related Immune Activation and Capsular Contracture: A Cohort Study of Infection, Vaccination, and Explantation.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Life's Essential 8 and Risk of Severe COVID-19 Among Adults Without Clinical Cardiovascular Disease: The C4R Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Spatial and neighborhood data in the collaborative cohort of cohorts for COVID-19 Research (C4R).PloS one · 2026Observational
- Associations of Prepandemic Lung Function and Structure with COVID-19 Outcomes: The C4R Study.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
61 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleRobust COVID-19 outcomes classification is important for ongoing epidemiology research on acute and post-acute COVID-19 conditions. Protocolized medical record review is an established method to validate endpoints for clinical trials and cardiovascular epidemiology cohorts; however, a protocol to adjudicate hospitalizations for COVID-19 among epidemiology cohorts was lacking.
objectivesWe developed a protocol to ascertain and adjudicate hospitalized COVID-19 across a meta-cohort of 14 US prospective cohort studies. This report describes the first three years of protocol implementation (October 1, 2020-October 1, 2023) and evaluates its repeatability and performance compared to classification by administrative codes.
methodsThe protocol was adapted from cohort approaches to clinical cardiovascular events ascertainment and adjudication. Potential COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths were identified by self-/proxy-report and, in some cases, active surveillance. Medical records were requested from hospitals and adjudicated for COVID-19 outcomes by clinically trained personnel according to a standardized rubric. Inter-rater agreement was assessed. The sensitivity and specificity of discharge diagnosis codes was compared to adjudicated diagnoses. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsThe study obtained medical records for 1,167 potential COVID-19 hospitalizations, which underwent protocolized adjudication. Adjudication confirmed COVID-19 infection was present for 1,030 (88%) events, of which COVID-19 was not the cause of hospitalization for 78 (8%). Of 952 hospitalizations determined by adjudicators to be caused by COVID-19, 319 (34%) participants were critically ill and 210 (22%) died. Pneumonia was confirmed in 822 (86%) and acute kidney injury in 350 (37%); other cardiovascular and thrombotic complications were rare (2-5%). Interrater reliability among adjudicators was high (kappa = 0.85-1.00) except for myocardial infarction (kappa = 0.60). Compared to adjudication, sensitivity of discharge diagnosis codes was higher for pneumonia (84%) and pulmonary embolism (81%) than for other complications (48-70%).
conclusionsProtocolized adjudication confirmed four out of five COVID-19 hospitalizations in a US meta-cohort and confirmed cases of pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, and other conditions that were not indicated by discharge diagnosis codes. These results highlight the importance of validating health outcomes for use in research on COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 conditions, and some limitations of claims-based data.
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.