Mortality Analysis of COVID-19 Confirmed Cases in Pakistan

  1. Ambreen Chaudhry
  2. Aamer Ikram
  3. Mirza Amir Baig
  4. Muhammad Salman
  5. Tamkeen Ghafoor
  6. Zakir Hussain
  7. Mumtaz Ali Khan
  8. Jamil Ahmed Ansari
  9. Asif Syed
  10. Wasif Javed
  11. Ehsan Larik
  12. Muhammad Mohsan
  13. Naveed Masood
  14. Zeeshan Iqbal
  15. Khurram Akram

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Introduction: COVID-19, a novel disease, appeared in December 2019 in China and rapidly spread across the world. Till the second week of April 2020, high incidence (2.9/100,000) and cases fatality rates (1.7%) were observed in Pakistan. This study was conducted to determine the temporal and spatial distribution of the first 100 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in Pakistan and their associated demographic factors. Method: A record review of the first 100 deaths reported among RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases was conducted. Demographic, epidemiological, and risk factors information was obtained associated comorbidities and clinical signs and symptoms were recorded and frequencies were determined. Results: A total of 100 mortalities with an overall case fatality rate of 1.67% (CFR) were analyzed. The median age of patients was 64.5 years (IQR: 54-70) with 75% (n=75) males. Among all deaths reported, 71 (71%) cases had one or more documented comorbidities at the time of diagnosis.  The most frequently reported co-morbidities were: hypertension (67%), followed by Diabetes Mellitus (45%) and Ischemic Heart Diseases (27%). The most frequent presenting symptoms were shortness of breath (87%) and fever (79%). The median duration of illness was eight days (IQR: 4-11 days), the median delay reaching hospital to seek health care was three days (IQR: 0-6 days) while the median duration of hospital stay was also three days (IQR: 1-7 days). Among all, 62% had no history of international travel. The most affected age group was 60-69 years while no death reported in the age group below 20 years.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.37978/tijfs.v4i2.291
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.07.20121939: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Study was approved by the National Institute of health’s ethical review board and was exempted from written informed consent by the same.
    Consent: Study was approved by the National Institute of health’s ethical review board and was exempted from written informed consent by the same.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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.

    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 10.1101/2020.06.07.20121939v1 on medRxiv