ArticleClinical epidemiology2025
Adaptation of the WHO COVID-19 Clinical Progression Scale for Registry-Based Data: A Whole-Population Study in Sweden.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
Purpose: COVID-19 has been extensively researched; however, the lack of standardized COVID-19 severity categorization in register-based research complicates comparison of studies. The WHO COVID-19 Clinical Progression Scale is a standardized disease severity tool for clinical data, though not adapted to data available in health registries. We aimed to develop and validate such a novel categorization with international applicability. Methods: The WHO Clinical Progression Scale was translated to a severity index utilizing ICD- and procedure-codes from outpatient, inpatient, intensive care, and mortality registries using the adult Swedish population and SARS-CoV-2 positive-test data (January 2020 - July 2022). Cox proportional hazards were applied to determine whether increasing severity correlates with mortality in COVID-19 patients compared to the population. Results: The WHO-Scale was translated to ten categories reflecting the increasing need for advanced care, encompassing 8,245,474 individuals including 1,981,946 SARS-CoV-2 infections. Fatal COVID-19 cases were older with more comorbidities. Those receiving mechanical ventilation and ECMO were younger with fewer comorbidities. Among survivors beyond 30 days, 90-day all-cause mortality increased with severity using category zero (no laboratory-verified SARS-CoV-2) as reference. Mortality was lowest for patients without health care adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities and socio-economic variables (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-1.22). Those hospitalized >5 days had higher mortality (aHR 5.83, 5.5-6.17). Those requiring ECMO/ECLS had the highest mortality (aHR 593.54, 317.77-1108.65). Conclusion: The novel COVID-19 severity index associated with all-cause 90-day mortality and aligned with previous literature. This index will enable comparative studies of COVID-19, which is important for public health policies and development of clinical guidelines. This is an innovative epidemiologic tool with potential applicability in all countries with centralised health registers. The index also has the potential to be used for other infectious diseases and in real-time data for modelling predictions.
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.