A look back at the first wave of COVID-19 in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis of mortality and health care resource use among severe or critical patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate the mortality and health care resource use among patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) in the first wave of pandemic in China. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the mortality, discharge rate, length of hospital stay, and use of invasive ventilation in severe or critical COVID-19 cases in China. We searched electronic databases for studies from China with no restrictions on language or interventions patients received. We screened records, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies in duplicate. We performed the meta-analysis using random-effect models through a Bayesian framework. Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine studies by disease severity, study location and patient enrolment start date. We also performed sensitivity analysis using various priors, and assessed between-study heterogeneity and publication bias for the primary outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 6,205 titles and abstracts screened, 500 were reviewed in full text. A total of 42 studies were included in the review, of which 95% were observational studies (n = 40). The pooled 28-day and 14-day mortalities among severe or critical patients were 20.48% (7,136 patients, 95% credible interval (CrI), 13.11 to 30.70) and 10.83% (95% CrI, 6.78 to 16.75), respectively. The mortality declined over time and was higher in patients with critical disease than severe cases (1,235 patients, 45.73%, 95% CrI, 22.79 to 73.52 vs. 3,969 patients, 14.90%, 95% CrI, 4.70 to 39.57) and patients in Hubei compared to those outside Hubei (6,719 patients, 26.62%, 95% CrI, 13.11 to 30.70 vs. 244 patients, 5.88%, 95% CrI 2.03 to 14.11). The length of hospital stay was estimated at 18.48 days (6,847 patients, 95% CrI, 17.59 to 21.21), the 28-day discharge rate was 50.48% (3,645 patients, 95% CrI, 26.47 to 79.53), and the use of invasive ventilation rate was 13.46% (4,108 patients, 95% CrI, 7.61 to 22.31). CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found high mortality among severe and critical COVID-19 cases. Severe or critical COVID-19 cases consumed a large amount of hospital resources during the outbreak.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".