Length of hospital stay and risk of intensive care admission and in-hospital death among COVID-19 patients in Norway: a register-based cohort study comparing patients fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine to unvaccinated patients

  1. Robert Whittaker
  2. Anja Bråthen Kristofferson
  3. Beatriz Valcarcel Salamanca
  4. Elina Seppälä
  5. Karan Golestani
  6. Reidar Kvåle
  7. Sara Viksmoen Watle
  8. Eirik Alnes Buanes

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.01.033
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.05.21265958: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Ethics: Ethical approval for this study was granted by Regional Committees for Medical Research Ethics - South East Norway, reference number 249509.
    Consent: The need for informed consent was waived by the ethics committee.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Our study also has limitations. While we have controlled for several important confounders, the potential for residual confounding must be acknowledged, given the observational nature of the study. Also, the small number of vaccinated patients in some analyses must be considered, and we were not yet able to conduct more detailed analyses of different vaccine parameters, such as vaccine type, time since vaccination and dose intervals. However, our results were robust when we restricted our analysis to vaccinated patients with no more than 150 days between date of last dose and positive test. Another limitation is that some of our reported underlying risk factors do not distinguish potential differences within groups, for example whether risk factors are well-regulated or treated. Also, 38% of patients had unknown body mass index. Our model may therefore not fully adjust for certain underlying risk factors. We were also not able to adjust for care home residents, who may receive healthcare for severe COVID-19 partially or fully outside a hospital setting. This is particularly relevant for our cohort of patients ≥80 years. Finally, previous natural infection is associated with a high level of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection (28, 29), and while we dropped one reported reinfection, we cannot rule out that there were other previously undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infections in our unvaccinated cohort. If present, this would bias the association between vaccination and our outcom...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.11.05.21265958 on medRxiv