Who is dying from COVID-19 in the United Kingdom? A review of cremation authorisations from a single South Wales' crematorium

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Only studies in the UK on individuals dying from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in hospital have been published, to date. Cremation law requires collection of clinical information that can improve understanding of deaths in both hospital and community settings. Age, sex, date and place of death, occupation, comorbidities and where infection acquired was recorded for all deaths from COVID-19, between 6 April and 30 May, for whom an application was made for cremation at a South Wales' crematorium. Of 752 cremations, 215 (28.6%) were COVID-19 (115 (53.5%) male and 100 (46.5%) female). Median age was 82 years (youngest patient 47 and the oldest 103 years). Over half the deaths (121/215: 56.3%) were over 80 years. Males' odds of dying in hospital, rather than the community were 1.96 times that of females (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.03 – 3.74, P = 0.054) despite being of similar age and having a similar number of comorbidities. Only 21 (9.8%) of 215 patients had no comorbidities recorded. Patients dying in care homes were significantly older than those dying in hospital (median 88 years (interquartile (IQ) range 82–93 years) vs. 80 years (IQ range 71–87 years): P < 0.0001). Patients dying in hospital had significantly more comorbidities than those dying in care homes (median 2: IQ range 1–3 vs. 1: IQ range 1–2: P < 0.001). Sixty three (29.3%) of infections were hospital acquired and a further 55 (25.6%) acquired in care homes. In a series, of hospital and community deaths, persons over 80 with an average two comorbidities predominated. Men were more likely to die in hospital. Half the infections were acquired in hospitals or care homes with implications for management of the pandemic.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.01.20136317: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variableDifferences in patient characteristics and comorbidities (i) between men and women and (ii) by place of death were examined using the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and the chi squared test (Yates corrected) for categorical variables.

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    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.