ArticleCureus2025
Management of Patients With COVID-19 During the Pandemic: A Retrospective Cohort Study From a Tertiary Care Centre in Mumbai, India.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe conducted the present analysis to understand the clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infection and the factors associated with mortality over the one-and-a-half years of the pandemic in Mumbai, India.
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of 3561 COVID-19 patients admitted to a private tertiary care hospital in Mumbai, India. The main outcome variable for analysis was death (yes/no). We compared the characteristics of COVID-19 patients who had died during their stay in the hospital with those who had not died. We used survival analysis to identify the factors associated with mortality.
resultsThe mortality rate was 0.71 per 100 person-days (95% CI: 0.61-0.81 per 100 person days (PD)); it was higher (2.03 (95% CI: 1.47, 2.82) per 100 PD) in those aged >= 80 years compared with 18-39 years (p<0.001). The hazard rate (HR) was significantly higher in those with chronic liver disease (HR: 5.12, 95% CI: 1.78, 14.71; p=0.002) and lower in those who were treated with injection enoxaparin (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.69; p<0.001). In patients without breathing difficulties, the hazard was significantly lower in those treated with doxycycline (HR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.17, 0.99; p=0.05). In patients who presented with breathing difficulties, hazard was significantly lower in those who were treated with remdesivir (HR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.90; p=0.019). In patients who required ventilatory support (invasive and non-invasive), the hazard was significantly lower with injected tocilizumab (HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.89; p=0.013).
conclusionsThe mortality was highest during the initial days of the pandemic and in patients with co-morbidities. Remdesivir and the tocilizumab injection were useful in the reduction of mortality in the severe form of COVID-19 infection. Doxycycline was useful in milder and less severe forms of infection. However, enoxaparin injection was associated with lower mortality in most of these cases.
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.