Centenarian Mortality Rate During COVID-19: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Marked by high mortality rates on a global scale, with disease mortality being notably focused among older adults, the COVID-19 pandemic has become a significant health crisis. Despite the numerous publications on COVID-19 mortality among older adults, there is still a gap in knowledge when considering centenarians, as there is no systematic review and meta-analysis that summarizes COVID-19 mortality in centenarians globally. Objective This study aims to systematically review and synthesize global evidence on COVID-19 mortality rates among centenarians and the population of older adults worldwide, whether residing in long-term health facilities, hospitals, or their homes. Methods An automated search was conducted on the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Observational studies, both cohort and case-control, were selected. Quality assessment of the selected studies was based on the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for observational cohort and case-control studies. Three independent authors conducted the searches, and any possible disagreements were resolved by consensus. A meta-analysis of mortality proportions will be conducted to calculate the raw, logit, and arcsine proportions for all studies included in our meta-analyses. Heterogeneity between studies with a significance of P=.05 will be assessed by calculating the I2 value using the DerSimonian and Laird method for random effects. Odds ratios and 95% CIs for dichotomous data and weighted mean risk differences and 95% CIs for continuous variables will be calculated. Further subgroup analyses will be attempted to explore heterogeneity among over 6.7 million older adults. Leave-one-out sensitivity tests will be conducted to assess the robustness of our results. The meta-analysis will be conducted using R software version 4.4.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Results A total of 4 studies were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis. Of the included studies, 3 are retrospective cohort studies and 1 is an observational, retrospective case-control study. As for study group size, 1 cohort study was conducted on a population of less than 1000 participants, 2 studies (1 cohort and 1 case-control) involved more than 10,000 participants, and 1 cohort study included more than 6 million participants. Conclusions This study has significant potential. Given the consensus that older adults, let alone centenarians, are the most vulnerable demographic to serious outcomes and deaths during pandemics. Addressing these gaps is crucial for the informed development of public policies, enabling countries to minimize the impacts on this population, particularly during health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42025645150; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025645150 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/74068
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,064 | 0,096 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,021 | 0,032 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,014 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,063 | 0,007 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».