MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313272848 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.999225

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) excess mortality outcomes associated with pandemic effects study (COPES): A systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4313272848 on OpenAlexafffundabout
David Lu, Sumeet Dhanoa, Harleen Cheema, Kimberley Lewis, Patrick Geeraert, Benjamin Merrick, Aaron Vander Leek, Meghan Sebastianski, Brittany Kula, Dipayan Chaudhuri, John Basmaji, Arnav Agrawal, Dan Niven, Kirsten M. Fiest, Henry T. Stelfox, Danny J. Zuege, Oleksa Rewa, Sean M. Bagshaw, Vincent Lau

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityAlberta Health ServicesMcMaster UniversityUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryImpact
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsPandemicMedicineMeta-analysisConfidence intervalRelative riskCINAHLCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MEDLINEMortality rateCritical appraisalDiseaseInternal medicinePsychological interventionInfectious disease (medical specialty)Alternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and aim With the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continuing to impact healthcare systems around the world, healthcare providers are attempting to balance resources devoted to COVID-19 patients while minimizing excess mortality overall (both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients). To this end, we conducted a systematic review (SR) to describe the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on all-cause excess mortality (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19) during the pandemic timeframe compared to non-pandemic times. Methods We searched EMBASE, Cochrane Database of SRs, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), from inception (1948) to December 31, 2020. We used a two-stage review process to screen/extract data. We assessed risk of bias using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). We used Critical Appraisal and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results Of 11,581 citations, 194 studies met eligibility. Of these studies, 31 had mortality comparisons (n = 433,196,345 participants). Compared to pre-pandemic times, during the COVID-19 pandemic, our meta-analysis demonstrated that COVID-19 mortality had an increased risk difference (RD) of 0.06% (95% CI: 0.06–0.06% p < 0.00001). All-cause mortality also increased [relative risk (RR): 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38–1.70, p < 0.00001] alongside non-COVID-19 mortality (RR: 1.18, 1.07–1.30, p < 0.00001). There was “very low” certainty of evidence through GRADE assessment for all outcomes studied, demonstrating the evidence as uncertain. Interpretation The COVID-19 pandemic may have caused significant increases in all-cause excess mortality, greater than those accounted for by increases due to COVID-19 mortality alone, although the evidence is uncertain. Systematic review registration [ https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails ], identifier [CRD42020201256].

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.037
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.387
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.143 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207