Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41969737›Full record

ArticlePublic health challenges2026

Evaluating Premature Mortality in Bangladesh During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparative Analysis of Absolute and Relative Measures.

Ahbab Mohammad Fazle Rabbi

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health challenges, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ahbab Mohammad Fazle RabbiDepartment of Population Sciences University of Dhaka Dhaka Bangladesh.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8627-187X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly disrupted global mortality trends, affecting all age groups and leading to an increase in premature mortality. Accurately estimating premature mortality during such sudden epidemics is challenging, as different measures capture distinct aspects of mortality. Using period life tables from the 2024 World Population Prospects, this study assessed the impact of COVID-19 on premature mortality in Bangladesh during 2020 and 2021 using four complementary measures: potential years of life lost (PYLL) to quantify the absolute burden of premature deaths, period-expected years of life lost (PEYLL) to capture mortality exceeding expected levels, and two threshold ages based on lifespan disparity and life-table entropy to reflect shifts in lifespan distribution and inequality. Results showed most measures of premature mortality in Bangladesh showed a temporary decline in 2020, followed by a partial rebound in 2021. For both sexes, PYLL and the crude PYLL rate decreased in 2020 relative to 2019 but increased again in 2021, reflecting a renewed rise in premature mortality during the second pandemic year. Relative measures exhibited more nuanced patterns: The lifespan-disparity-based threshold age declined for both males and females, whereas the entropy-based threshold age decreased in 2020 for both sexes but slightly rebounded for males in 2021 and continued to decline for females, highlighting sex-specific shifts in the distribution of deaths across ages. These findings demonstrate that applying multiple metrics provides a more nuanced understanding of how the pandemic affected different sexes and age groups, critical insights for guiding public health planning and pandemic response strategies.

Indexed as

Bangladeshcoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemicpotential years of life lost (PYLL)premature mortalitythreshold ages

Identifiers

PMID41969737
PMCPMC13064581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.