Geographic Factors Associated with Poorer Outcomes in Patients Diagnosed with COVID-19 in Primary Health Care
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background: The prognosis of older age COVID-19 patients with comorbidities is associated with a more severe course and higher fatality rates but no analysis has yet included factors related to the geographical area/municipality in which the affected patients live, so the objective of this study was to analyse the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 in terms of sex, age, comorbidities, and geographic variables. Methods: A retrospective cohort of 6286 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 was analysed, considering demographic data, previous comorbidities and geographic variables. The main study variables were hospital admission, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death due to worsening symptoms; and the secondary variables were sex, age, comorbidities and geographic variables (size of the area of residence, distance to the hospital and the driving time to the hospital). A comparison analysis and a multivariate Cox model were performed. Results: The multivariate Cox model showed that women had a better prognosis in any type of analysed prognosis. Most of the comorbidities studied were related to a poorer prognosis except for dementia, which is related to lower admissions and higher mortality. Suburban areas were associated with greater mortality and with less hospital or ICU admission. Distance to the hospital was also associated with hospital admission. Conclusions: Factors such as type of municipality and distance to hospital act as social health determinants. This fact must be taken account in order to stablish specifics prevention measures and treatment protocols.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.25.21250404: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The study protocol was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Aragón. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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: 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.
Resu…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.25.21250404: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: The study protocol was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Aragón. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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: 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.
- 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.
-
