ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Healthcare-associated COVID-19 in Ontario, Canada: case classification and relative mortality.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic placed immense strain on Canada's healthcare system and nosocomial infections increased risk for both healthcare workers and high-risk patients. Nosocomial COVID-19 surveillance typically relies on time-based case definitions that aim to balance sensitivity against specificity, yielding inconsistent estimates of relative mortality risk. We developed a latent class analysis approach to probabilistically classify healthcare-associated infections using multiple indicator variables and evaluated mortality risk in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
methodsWe analyzed COVID-19 surveillance data from Ontario's Case Contact and Management System and COVaxON vaccine registry (March 17, 2020 to September 4, 2022). Latent class analysis (LCA) integrated five binary indicators (nosocomial flag, outbreak linkage, and three time intervals from admission to positive test) to classify 53,191 hospitalized cases by likelihood of healthcare-acquired infection. We estimated mortality odds and survival by classification using multivariable logistic regression and time-varying Cox models, adjusting for age, comorbidities, immunocompromised status, long-term care residence, vaccination, and pandemic wave.
resultsLCA identified three classes: unlikely (n = 46,819), moderately likely (n = 2,687), and likely (n = 3,685) healthcare-acquired infection. Compared to unlikely, moderately likely cases had elevated mortality (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.14-1.40); likely cases showed no elevation in cumulative mortality (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.96-1.15). Time-varying survival models revealed substantially higher mortality risk early in the period following infection: hazard ratios were 3.25 (95% CI: 2.99-3.52) for moderately likely and 4.88 (95% CI: 4.53-5.25) for likely healthcare-acquired infection. Single-indicator variable sensitivities ranged from 34% to 70%.
conclusionDefining nosocomial infections early in the COVID-19 pandemic was challenging due to the volume of cases and number of patients hospitalized. Several different characteristics can indicate a case's likelihood of being healthcare-acquired, and using a single variable to define a nosocomial case often presents trade-offs in terms of sensitivity or specificity. These findings underscore the limitations of single-indicator definitions and the risk of misclassifying cases in a way that would underestimate the relative severity of hospital-acquired infection by biasing effects toward the null. Latent class modeling addresses sensitivity-specificity trade-offs inherent in time-based nosocomial definitions and reveals elevated mortality risk that strict definitions miss.
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.