Systematic review and meta‐analysis of the characteristics and outcomes of readmitted <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of the present study is to investigate the incidence, characteristics and outcomes of patients who were readmitted to hospital emergency departments or required re‐hospitalisation following an index hospitalisation with a diagnosis of COVID‐19. A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE and pre‐print websites was conducted between 1 January and 31 December 2020. Studies reporting on the incidence, characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID‐19 who represent or require hospital admission were included. Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or through an independent third reviewer. Data were synthesised according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Six studies reporting on 547 readmitted patients were included. The overall incidence was 4.4%, most common in males (57.2%), and due to respiratory distress or prolonged COVID‐19. Readmitted patients had a shorter initial hospital length of stay (LOS) compared with those with a single hospitalisation (8.1 ± 10.6 vs 13.9 ± 10.2 days). The mean time to readmission was 7.6 ± 6.0 days; the mean LOS on re‐hospitalisation was 6.3 ± 5.6 days. Hypertension (odds ratio (OR) = 2.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69–2.55; P < 0.001; I 2 = 0%), diabetes mellitus (OR = 1.77; 95% CI 1.38–2.27; P < 0.001; I 2 = 0%) and chronic renal failure (OR = 2.37; 95% CI 1.09–5.14; P < 0.001; I 2 = 0%) were more common in these patients. Intensive care admission rates were similar between the two groups; 12.8% (22/172) of readmitted patients died. In summary, readmitted patients following an index hospitalisation for COVID‐19 were more commonly males with multiple comorbidities. Shorter initial hospital LOS and unresolved primary illness may have contributed to readmission.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".